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
Dutch Govt ban Burqa, should we?
Options
Comments
-
Hobbes wrote:So why not ban hoodies then? Or Scarfs? Glasses? Fake beards?
As I've pointed out already, things like this are banned in lots of places. Walk into the Square, Tallaght, with your hood up, a fake beard on, and a pair of sunglasses, and see if security say anything to you. My money's on yes.
Walk in wearing a burka, and they'd be afraid to say anything to you because it would be deemed racist.Hobbes wrote:It's very relevant to the discussion as the law is in banning the burqa, the whole "helmets" part is just trying to get people to buy into it. If your going to ban them you may as well ban a whole range of things.
The whole range of things you already mentioned are disallowed, it just hasn't been put into law. Wear a helmet into a bank and see what happens. Before you say anything about it being a private establishment, do the same in a library and the chances are you'll be asked to remove it.Hobbes wrote:I read it. As I said there is nothing at this time that puts religons rights above those who are not religous.
Not in the statute books yet, but as I mentioned earlier the case of the 12 year old bringing in his kirpan to a school in Canada. Because of its religious, symbolic nature, and the supposed benign nature of his religious beliefs, the potential danger to the other students was deemed to be less pertinent.
And fear of reprisal from Islamic fundamentalism is even cutting in on Western culture's belief in free speech (see: Danish cartoons).Hobbes wrote:A person in a burqa can be refused entry from a shop if they cannot reconise the person. It is totally different from walking in a public place.
If they were refused entry to a shop they would no doubt have the shop in court on the grounds of discrimination.RedPlanet wrote:Yeah you keep claiming that it's against the law to wear a balaclava.
I see your post on in the Legal Discussion forum.
Looks like you're not getting the results you were hoping.
:eek: You've caught me! :eek:
Except that I've repeatedly said "laws and regulations" should be universally applied. I'm trying to find out if it's illegal, but it's irrelevent really. It's against most places' regulations to allow someone to wear a balaclava on the premises, but they can't apply the same regulations to a Muslim or they'll end up in court over it.
If it's not illegal to wear a balaclava on the street then there's no reason for a balaclava to be. But if the former is illegal, so too should the latter be.
Ya dig?RedPlanet wrote:Tell you what, you go ahead and post up the relevant statute that makes wearing a balaclava illegal (since that is your premise).
Then we can all scrutinise it and this discussion can evolve.
Currently you haven't proven that it is actually illegal to wear a balaclava in a public space and i'm having my doubts that it really is.
This is moot since I've pointed out how I'm referring to regulations not being universally applied, not necessarily laws.0 -
See thats half the problem. You (personally) can't tell the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh, even when you are told.DaveMcG wrote:There was also that incident not too long ago in America of a young boy bringing some Muslim knife into school because it's part of his beliefs. Who cares? It's a f*cking knife. I'm not allowed bring one in, therefore you aren't. I don't care if you're a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist.
So just how many burqa-wearing shoplifters did you see walking past the shops today? Roughly the same as the number of bikini wearers I'd guess.gurramok wrote:For instance, someone wearing a burqa steals something from a shop and is caught on cctv, what are the chances of identifying that person?!
When I was growing up in Cork in the 1980s there was one black guy in the entire city. Do you think he would have had much success as a gangsta hitman?0 -
Victor wrote:See thats half the problem. You (personally) can't tell the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh, even when you are told.So just how many burqa-wearing shoplifters did you see walking past the shops today? Roughly the same as the number of bikini wearers I'd guess.
I posted this earlier in the thread:DaveMcG wrote:There was also an incident at the start of this year in Canada, where a 12-year-old Sikh brought a kirpan (8 inch knife) to school, and the school board wouldn't allow it. It ended up going to the Supreme Court and the school board's decision was found to be in breach of the boy's freedom of religion.
Referring to the boy as a Sikh, and even going so far as to give his weapon the appropriate name!
Evidentally I made a mistake in the post you quoted, since the main topic in the thread is Islam, so it's a reasonable mistake.
But contempt for organised religion isn't exactly something I've hidden, as I said earlier in the thread:DaveMcG wrote:So no, I won't feel safer if they're banned. But I will feel like society is moving forward if we stop bending over backwards for ANY religion, and this is just an example. I will feel even better if we start allowing abortions in this country, and stop playing the angelus.
But that's just me.
So it doesn't really matter if it's Sikhism, Judaism, or Christianity, tbh.0 -
The relevant section of the Defence Act applies to military uniforms (not camouflage per se) and does not have provision for arrest. So I suspect what you say isn't the whole truth.bk wrote:A friend of mine was once arrested (but not later charged) for wearing camouflage in public on the way to a fancy dress party.
Actually, the only place women in Saudi have restrictions is in front of men, not of their family. Hence there are women only shopping centres, etc. where they need not cover up.SeanW wrote:You mean like Saudi Arabia where all religion except Wahibi Islam is banned? Or women can't drive or be seen without wearing one of those stupid tents
If you want to criticise relious violence kindly have a look at Bush's "Crusade" (his word).SeanW wrote:I agree 100%, but my point was that it may have created a perception of Islam as violent: i.e. that this is how an insult/accusation is met. Even though that is not really the case it might look like that to some people. I also know there is distinction between the vast bulk of people of the Islamic faith, versus the few who are extreme. But the few who are extreme seem to wield most of the power.
I'm wondering, will Muslim women wear Burqa when only children are present? Would a Muslim woman who considers it her duty to wear a burqa even have a job?Schuhart wrote:Can I just say that I've no problem whatsoever with you wearing a burqa. But if you want to teach my kids, I really think you should keep it to evenings and weekends. Because thinking that God wants you to cover every inch of your flesh is a bit weird, really.
But is really easy to track the person from shop to shop, camera to camera, because they are wearing something unusual.DaveMcG wrote:ehh... The fact that you can't see their face would be a bit of a hinderance for Gardaí studying CCTV footage. "Gardaí are on the lookout for a medium height male or female. Has broad shoulders. Possibly has eyes."
Eh, no. How many terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists are carreid out by burqa wearers? I don't think I've heard of any.But since you brought it up I'm sure for lots of people the burka reminds them of recent terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists.
I could carry a knife in my pocket, a pistol in my padded jacket and a rifle in my overcoat. Who needs a burqa? Oh, yeah, I forgot I need my RPG-7 launcher for robbing the cash-in-transit van.My posts earlier in the thread were to illustrate another point, but the main crux of the discussion is over whether or not we should put any religion on a pedastal such that they should be allowed to do something such as camouflage themselves or carry a concealed weapon in public
Next: a ban on winter sports?gurramok wrote:In a democracy, covering your face in public is abhorrent whether its by burqa, balaclava, scarf, hoodie with scarf, stocking on face etc
Actually this has been the law since I think the 1970s. A police officer at a protest can order someone or all to not cover their faces or they must leave. Commonly used against anti-hunt protestors and the like.gurramok wrote:Btw, have read on BBC website before that the UK govt are thinking of introducing a similar law with reference to demostrations due to a recent Islamic demostration, some participants had covered up their faces and it didn't go down well with the authorities and the general public0 -
Victor wrote:So just how many burqa-wearing shoplifters did you see walking past the shops today? Roughly the same as the number of bikini wearers I'd guess.
That doesn't matter, I could dress up as a female Muslim & don a Burqua - then do all the shoplifting I want without being identified. I don't get why it hasn't been done on a bigger scale yet.
Maybe a compromise would be to make it illegal to enter any retail or public building wearing a burqua - but the streets would be ok. Like the smoking ban.0 -
Advertisement
-
I suspect you are being deliberately obstreperous. Please tell me how this scenario would play out.Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:That doesn't matter, I could dress up as a female Muslim & don a Burqua - then do all the shoplifting I want without being identified. I don't get why it hasn't been done on a bigger scale yet.0 -
There are no stats on what people were wearing when committing crime.Victor wrote:So just how many burqa-wearing shoplifters did you see walking past the shops today? Roughly the same as the number of bikini wearers I'd guess.
The point being, there is a huge problem in criminal acts being carried out by covering one's face in public.
It also will help community relations that a face be seen when talking rather than talking to a piece of cloth over face.
Well, his face would be seen, thats the important part no matter what colour his skin is.Victor wrote:When I was growing up in Cork in the 1980s there was one black guy in the entire city. Do you think he would have had much success as a gangsta hitman?
If its law since then, why do the authorities over there want an updated law to give them more power to stop covering of faces?Victor wrote:Actually this has been the law since I think the 1970s. A police officer at a protest can order someone or all to not cover their faces or they must leave. Commonly used against anti-hunt protestors and the like.
Its obvious that covering of faces projects an intimidatory nature on law abiding citizens and thats not acceptable in a democracy.0 -
-
Ban Kerry people. I know you can see their faces. But do you ever really know what they're thinking?0
-
gurramok wrote:What a load of poo!
Nice one, playing the racist card. If you had bothered to read the BBC report, the dutch govt stated it was banning items that covers the face, its NOT what you wear but what CONCEALS your face.
By your logic, its racist to bikers now as the visor is now banned?:rolleyes:
In a democracy, covering your face in public is abhorrent whether its by burqa, balaclava, scarf, hoodie with scarf, stocking on face etc
Btw, have read on BBC website before that the UK govt are thinking of introducing a similar law with reference to demostrations due to a recent Islamic demostration, some participants had covered up their faces and it didn't go down well with the authorities and the general public
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6095260.stm
'The proposals also include action to ban demonstrators from covering their faces to avoid police scrutiny'
Heheh, its purely and utterly racist, they can slap all the bells and whistles on it they want.. this is what the law means..
We are white, we are democracy, we don't like your veil crap and the way u treat your women, screw you.
But lets all kid ourselves and yes, its a sensible bill, I mean it makes logical sense, and blah blah.0 -
Advertisement
-
gurramok wrote:It also will help community relations
How will denying a person thier religous beliefs help community relations. If anything the women who wear the burqa aren't going to be leaving the house.Its obvious that covering of faces projects an intimidatory nature on law abiding citizens and thats not acceptable in a democracy.
As mentioned lets ban sportswear then too.0 -
While we're at it perhaps we should ban people from concealing their faces and eyes with these oversized shades also, what do you think? :rolleyes:
0 -
Let's not forget face paint, and make-up for that matter.
I seen this fella out "busking" doing the standing statue routine and guess what? Sure his face was entirely painted silver, wore a wig too.
You'd never know what he looked like under all that paint and disguise....0 -
gurramok wrote:Nice one, playing the racist card. If you had bothered to read the BBC report, the dutch govt stated it was banning items that covers the face, its NOT what you wear but what CONCEALS your face.
Come the first bad winter storm, can you honestly see the Dutch police arresting every single person wearing a scarf to protect themselves from, say, -10 degree air temps with another -10 of windchill.
Ireland enjoys nice mild winter temperatures. 0 is considered cold. Hit the mainland, and 0 is a lovely warm day. -20 is rechable before windchill. On extreme days, you can most certainly have temperatures that will cause physical damage to exposed skin very damned quickly.
Te Dutch want to make that mandatory, apparently. They think that in such extreme temperatures, anyone wearing a scarf should be arrested.
Similarly, people on their motorbikes going down the street should apparently either have no helmet-visor on, or be arrested. Again, lets not forget those winter temps and the windchill. Its not like the visor does anything, right?
And as for my mate who got in an accident recently and ended up with a heavily bandaged face...well, he just gets to choose between house arrest and full arrest, right? Because he too has no valid reason to have his face covered when he goes out.
There are two simple options here:
1) The law is moronic as it does not allow that people often have legitimate needs to have their faces covered at certain times.
or
2) The law is not intended to actually be enforced on anyone who can offer any sort of legitimate (i.e. non-religious) need for covering their face.
I take one look at the title of this thread, the title of the BBC article, the comments by the immigration minister therein, and the number of people on both sides of the debate focussing on the burqa and I ask myself if this is really about the security issue, because I find it hard to understand why we're not more concerned about tens of thousands of scarf-wearing strangers every winter if thats the case, but are instead being focussed on a tiny handful of victims and reminded how untrustworthy those Muslims are.
Rubbish. Its just not something you're used to. On a cold-but-sunny winters day, I will typically have a scarf over my mouth, a pair of sunglasses and a wooly hat on. Its so abhorrent to the Swiss, that I'm indistinguishable from large numbers of them.In a democracy, covering your face in public is abhorrent whether its by burqa, balaclava, scarf, hoodie with scarf, stocking on face etc
Indeed, I've seen kids wearing similar types of clothing carrying assault rifles down the street. My assumption - they're on their way to do an obligatory qualifying shoot as part of their military service. Your assumption - they should be asrrested for being an unbelievable abhorrent affront to democracy and your personal security.
Hit the alpine villages, and almost every second person will be wearing padded clothing, gloves, a scarfm and either sunglasses or goggles. 40% of them will be wearing helmets to boot. Obviously they're all untrustworthy.....right? I mean...we hear about crimes carried out by snowboarders and skiers about as often as by women wearing burqas, and the latter are a huge threat....so better ban snowsports while we're at it. Its the only way to be sure.
But what would they know about democracy over here, eh? Crazy Swiss.
Of course it didn't go down well. THe UK have more surveillance cameras than anyone else, and its unthinkable that people be allowed to execise their right to protest without being spied upon, identified, and files kept on their activities as a result.Btw, have read on BBC website before that the UK govt are thinking of introducing a similar law with reference to demostrations due to a recent Islamic demostration, some participants had covered up their faces and it didn't go down well with the authorities and the general public'The proposals also include action to ban demonstrators from covering their faces to avoid police scrutiny'
And as we all know, governments only ever have the best interests of hte public at heart.0 -
Oh, and thank Christ this isn't the early 90s when half of Dublin was wearing masks against the smog.
Shifty Dubliners. I trust them even less than the crazy Swiss.0 -
I think the ban is the wrong way to go about it. If they're in a public place people should be able to wear whatever they want tbh. However the owner of a private premises should be able to deny entry to people wearing burqas or motorcycle helmets or whatever else without coming under fire for being anti-religious, just like some clubs don't let people in wearing t-shirts or trainers.0
-
I think part of the issue here is that there is too much of a 'bowing down' to religion. Try and bring a knife or other such potential weapon to school and you'll most likely be expelled or at least severely reprimanded. But dress it up in 'religious belief' and you can do whatever the hell you like. It's bullsh1t.
As for the burqa, I wouldn't ban it. Let people wear if they want. To me if someone is so stupid and/or brainwashed to think that walking around with their head and face covered up is somehow pleasing their god, then they're welcome to it.0 -
aidan24326 wrote:But dress it up in 'religious belief' and you can do whatever the hell you like. It's bullsh1t.
I think you'll find what is buillsh1t is the notion that you can "dress up" whatever the hell you like as a religious belief.0 -
Its up to an individual as far as Im concerned. If it gives someone a satisfaction or an identity covering their face, then allow them to do so, as this is a personal choice and to remove that removes the civil liberties and freedom of expression once again in our society.
Futhermore, if one wishes to wear a Ski Mask or Balacalva, while not taking part in any sporting activity, then (in this country particularly) they should remember the past troubles and the associations made with those particular items of clothing and show a little restraint.
If you want to wear a Ski Mask doing your grocery shopping, its not the same as wearing a headscarf, or a veil across your face. That is because historically the veil is associated with both the religious and cultural themes of Muslim Society and it is just as much a part of their life as the Stations of the Cross is to a Catholic.
Just because Catholism doesnt necessitate the need for you to wear a physical badge of commitment towards the religion doesnt mean you can abuse those religions that do.
I think the Dutch have made a mistake, one that will backfire0 -
bonkey wrote:I think you'll find what is buillsh1t is the notion that you can "dress up" whatever the hell you like as a religious belief.
Not entirely. I may be exaggerating in saying 'whatever the hell you like' but certainly religion can be (and is) used as a valid excuse for many things that might not otherwise be allowed or deemed accepatable. Put something under the heading of religion and suddenly it's much more acceptable, with no further justification needed. Can you not see the absurdity of this?
Put it this way. I make my girlfriend/wife walk around with her head and face covered at all times. Why? they ask. The real reason? - Because I'm a chauvinstic pig, and I just like controlling her. Needless to say, I would be vilified as a nasty control-freak. BUT, I say it's becasue we're muslim. It's our 'religion' you see. Our belief. It's what 'god' demands. Ah well, no problem so.
Am I the only one who can see something wrong here?0 -
Advertisement
-
If there are crowds of burqa wearing bank robbers then I would imagine that the banks would ban them just as they do motorcycle helmets.
And please ban clowns too in that case, they piss me off.0 -
To wear the burqa is to stand in solidarity with the most retrograde elements of Islam.
It is an expression of solidarity with the enslavement of women, clitorectomy, slavery and the Taliban.
As such it is offensive not merely to the host community but to Muslim moderates.
The wearing of such extremist costume is unacceptable and should be combatted by all who care about the rights of women.
http://tinyurl.com/yks35f
MM0 -
Err, they do leave the house and go in out public wearing the burqa no matter what the weather is like.Hobbes wrote:How will denying a person thier religous beliefs help community relations. If anything the women who wear the burqa aren't going to be leaving the house.
How on earth can a conversation be had with a face covering burqa person, it'll be like talking to a brick wall with muffled sound with NO eye contact, its a barrier against promoting meaningful relations with the person.Hobbes wrote:As mentioned lets ban sportswear then too.
Regarding sportswear, its completely different scenario.
They are worn temporarily during a game and its next to impossible to understand what a person is saying when their mouths are covered hence such sportspeople do remove their gear when in a conversation out of politeness.
For a burqa wearing person, there is no such respect for a simple conversation and creates barriers for community relations.
They never remove the burqa anytime outside the house unlike the sportswearer.
Regarding scarf wearers, those scarf wearings are partial coverings of the face to prevent extreme cold, they usually remove the scarves to promote a meaningful dialogue with a non-scarfwearing person, absolutely no excuse to wear them in warmer chimes.Bonkey wrote:I take one look at the title of this thread, the title of the BBC article, the comments by the immigration minister therein, and the number of people on both sides of the debate focussing on the burqa and I ask myself if this is really about the security issue, because I find it hard to understand why we're not more concerned about tens of thousands of scarf-wearing strangers every winter if thats the case, but are instead being focussed on a tiny handful of victims and reminded how untrustworthy those Muslims are.
Do people you talk with understand the mumbo jumbo coming out of your mouth when you cover your mouth, is it disrespectful to not remove it?
For a burqa, they are worn in warmer weather too which defeats the weather argument.
Using religion as a scapegoat to promote intolerance of the face coverings is unjust.
So you advocate that people's faces be covered during a demonstration despite the potential of law-breakers in large numbers?Bonkey wrote:Of course it didn't go down well. THe UK have more surveillance cameras than anyone else, and its unthinkable that people be allowed to execise their right to protest without being spied upon, identified, and files kept on their activities as a result.0 -
aidan24326 wrote:Not entirely. I may be exaggerating in saying 'whatever the hell you like'
So, you agree that it is bullsh1t to say you can dress up "whatever you like" as I claimed?
I've no disagreement that if you tone down your claim to say that some things can be gotten away with by claiming that they have reliigious significant because said things have long-standing religious significance even if I find them morally wrong......which is where you seem to be headed now.
I didn't question that.but certainly religion can be (and is) used as a valid excuse for many things that might not otherwise be allowed or deemed accepatable.Put something under the heading of religion and suddenly it's much more acceptable, with no further justification needed. Can you not see the absurdity of this?
Well, yes, because you've diverged from describing reality again.Put it this way. I make my girlfriend/wife walk around with her head and face covered at all times. Why? they ask. The real reason? - Because I'm a chauvinstic pig, and I just like controlling her. Needless to say, I would be vilified as a nasty control-freak. BUT, I say it's becasue we're muslim.
But, I will ask, are you Muslim? A catholic cannot go around claiming some right because they're a Muslim, correct? Nor can a Muslim carry a symbolic knife into school because they're a Sikh.
There is a very tight correlation between your specific religion and the specific tolerances you can argue should be allowed for you. You don't get to pick and choose.
You don't get to decide tomorrow that you think you'll be a Jedi, and because light sabres haven't been invented you'll make do with a cavalry sabre and carry that.
The problem is distinguishing between those cases where someone freely chooses to obey the dictates of their religion, and those cases where someone is forced into doing likewise.It's our 'religion' you see. Our belief. It's what 'god' demands. Ah well, no problem so.
People who have issues with religious tolerance want us to believe that preventing the potential for abuse is more important than honouring the freedom - that we should make sure that no woman is forced into covering herself against her wishes, for example....but we don't care that in doing so we would be forcing other women to uncover themselves against their wishes.
Freedom is not defined as "stuff I agree with".
There is a balance to be struck, I don't deny that. I generally find that nations who work towards finding tolerant balances get better solutions than those who go for absolutism at either end of the scale. Furthermore, if we wish to argue that "its our country, so you follow our rules" (ignoring that there are Irish Muslims and its their country too), then we must also accept the inherent correctness of a Muslim nation enforcing its rules and saying that all women - Muslim or no - must adhere to some dress-code.
Personally, I'd rather advocate a solution which allows everyone the personal freedom to choose than an implicit admission that enforcing dress-codes across a nation is perfectly ok, or an implicitly biased admission that enforcement is ok when I agree with it and otherwise wrong.
I would rather a system that guarantees protection for anyone willnig to stand up for their rights than one which forces compliance regardless of how that sits with one's beliefs.
The burqa is not a problem. It may be a symptom of other problems, but I woudl always maintain that causes are what are treated, not the resultant symptoms.
Not in the slightest. There's no shortage of people who will agree that its ok to enforce something you agree with in order to prevent the potential enforcement by others of something you disagree with but allow.Am I the only one who can see something wrong here?
I'm just not one of them.0 -
gurramok wrote:Regarding scarf wearers, those scarf wearings are partial coverings of the face to prevent extreme cold, they usually remove the scarves to promote a meaningful dialogue with a non-scarfwearing person, absolutely no excuse to wear them in warmer chimes.
This has nothing to do with the point I was making which was that there are perfectly valid reasons why you may wish to be out in public with your face covered. It has nothing to do with security, it has nothing to do with politeness. It has to do with the notion that security, politeness, or any other such reason is insufficient to drive a "blanket ban" on covering one's face in public.
Because of this, I disagree with the notion that such a blanket ban is being suggested for any such reason...despite these being the reasons offered.
This makes me question why those reasons are offered. Its either because no-one has fully thought through the full implications of what they're doing, or they're using them as excuses to avoid admitting the real reasoning they want the law in place.
If you want me to believe that the lawmakers are merely idiotic instead of biased....I'll go with that. If you want me to believe that they're not really targetting scarf-wearers in winter, then I'll take it that you too do not accept their offered reasoning that all head coverings should go for security reasons. And if we don't accept their offered reason, then not only do we need to figure out what their real reason is, but also why they're lying about it.
Just as using security to promote intolerance of religious habits is unjust, but that's the main drive the BBC article, this thread, and other places seem to be taking - we need it for security, and its the Burqa which is primarily targetted.Using religion as a scapegoat to promote intolerance of the face coverings is unjust.
I didn't advocate anything.So you advocate that people's faces be covered during a demonstration despite the potential of law-breakers in large numbers?
I suggested that there are legitimate concerns about the increasing loss of privacy resultant from living in the most camera-monitored nation on earth and that a coincident ban to ensure you couldn't avoid said monitornig is not necessarily in everyone's best interests.
If you like, I'm suggesting that its not an open-and-shut case of saying "only bad things come from people hiding their faces, and those who want to see them only want said ability for the most honourable of reasons".
As with most things, I believe a balance is needed. I do not see outright bans as providing a balance, and as I said about burqa's in the previous post, I see them as a reaction to a symptom rather than a problem.0 -
bonkey wrote:I've no disagreement that if you tone down your claim to say that some things can be gotten away with by claiming that they have reliigious significant because said things have long-standing religious significance even if I find them morally wrong......which is where you seem to be headed now.
My whole point is why should religion be given this kind of special treatment at all? Why is something ok because I'm a muslim and then suddenly not ok because I'm not? If something is morally wrong it is morally wrong. End of story. I don't care if the person is muslim, catholic, sikh or whatever. Cutting off a girl's clitoris in infancy is sadistic butchery with massively sexist undertones. Dress it up in all the religious rhetoric you like and that fact doesn't change.
no I haven'tWell, yes, because you've diverged from describing reality againBut, I will ask, are you Muslim? A catholic cannot go around claiming some right because they're a Muslim, correct? Nor can a Muslim carry a symbolic knife into school because they're a Sikh.
There is a very tight correlation between your specific religion and the specific tolerances you can argue should be allowed for you. You don't get to pick and choose. You don't get to decide tomorrow that you think you'll be a Jedi, and because light sabres haven't been invented you'll make do with a cavalry sabre and carry that
Here's where you are missing the point entirely. Why should calling oneself a muslim or catholic entitle you to any special dispensation from normal modes of morality, ethics etc.? Why? Sure many muslim women wear the burqa of their own volition in adulthood. However it is enforced on them through childhood indoctrination and brainwashing. Calling that 'the muslim way' doesn't make it right.The problem is distinguishing between those cases where someone freely chooses to obey the dictates of their religion, and those cases where someone is forced into doing likewise
Like I said above I know many muslim women wear the burqa of freewill as it's the thing to do in their culture. But it is the case that in some of the more 'hardline' muslim countries it is cumpulsory for the women to wear their burqa and it is an offence not to.Personally, I'd rather advocate a solution which allows everyone the personal freedom to choose than an implicit admission that enforcing dress-codes across a nation is perfectly ok, or an implicitly biased admission that enforcement is ok when I agree with it and otherwise wrong.
I would rather a system that guarantees protection for anyone willnig to stand up for their rights than one which forces compliance regardless of how that sits with one's beliefs
I agree. You seem to think (from your previous post) that I am in favour of banning the burqa. I'm not. At no stage did I say something should be banned just because I don't agree with it. Personally I don't care. If muslim women want to walk around with a burqa on their head that's up to them. What I would have more issue with is the system of childhood indoctrination in muslim culture which is particularly virulent and which leads to women thinking it's ok for them to be treated like this. But like I said, the issue of the burqa is not really my business. I find it distasteful, but don't consider my own distaste for something to be grounds for banning it.The burqa is not a problem. It may be a symptom of other problems, but I woudl always maintain that causes are what are treated, not the resultant symptoms
It is a problem though. Like mountainyman said it is a symbol of female degradation and oppresion. That it's ok for a woman to dress like this as she is a second class citizen anyway, the man's property. That is the message it sends out loud and clear, and the message that many muslim boys will grow up with. Not all, but very many.Not in the slightest. There's no shortage of people who will agree that its ok to enforce something you agree with in order to prevent the potential enforcement by others of something you disagree with but allow.
I'm just not one of them.
Neither am I. I don't think we should be banning the burqa either. It would be hypocritical of us to go coming over all women's rights and dictating to the muslims considering that women in Ireland weren't exactly top of the food chain for a long time either, and it's only in the last couple of decades this has really changed.Though it's interesting to wonder if the same courtesies of free religious expression would be granted to us in a staunchly muslim country like Iran or Saudi Arabia. Somehow I'm not so sure.Just as using security to promote intolerance of religious habits is unjust, but that's the main drive the BBC article, this thread, and other places seem to be taking - we need it for security, and its the Burqa which is primarily targetted
One thing I do agree with you on. Saying it's for security reasons is a load of baloney.
EDIT: I don't actually think this is a major issue for Ireland anyway, as I don't see us ever having any more than a small muslim community, as we now do.0 -
gurramok wrote:Err, they do leave the house and go in out public wearing the burqa no matter what the weather is like.
Correct. The point of the burkqa. However lets say its totally banned the wife has three options.
1. Go outside without the Burkqa
2. Go outside with it and risk arrest.
3. Stay at home.
You see if the person is actually religous its a choice between breaking the law or staying at home and not leaving the house.
Sure its great for those who didn't want to wear it, but then if they were being forced to wear it odds on they will then be forced to stay in the house which will make matters worse.For a burqa, they are worn in warmer weather too which defeats the weather argument.
Doesn't defeat the weather argument at all. In fact weather is only being used as an excuse as to why other face garmets will be exempt.
What about sun-glasses? Get them to remove them as you can't see their face either? Or how about a face-mask (used quite a lot in cities or if medical reasons). Are you going to ask them to remove the face mask?Using religion as a scapegoat to promote intolerance of the face coverings is unjust.
????0 -
Hobbes wrote:Correct. The point of the burkqa. However lets say its totally banned the wife has three options.
1. Go outside without the Burkqa
2. Go outside with it and risk arrest.
3. Stay at home.
You see if the person is actually religous its a choice between breaking the law or staying at home and not leaving the house.
Obviously no. 1
If we want integration in western culture, burqa wearers should adapt to the sensitivity of our society and western values rather than adapt to their mode of society unless we live in a Afghan type society(burqa wearing reminds me of Afghanistan, we are not a hardline Islamic society)
I have no problem with anything on the body covered bar the face as it promotes dialogue between people.
Sunglasses only cover the eyes, a person wearing a face mask in a medical situation would have strict permission and safeguards to wear one to reassure the patient.Hobbes wrote:Doesn't defeat the weather argument at all. In fact weather is only being used as an excuse as to why other face garmets will be exempt.
What about sun-glasses? Get them to remove them as you can't see their face either? Or how about a face-mask (used quite a lot in cities or if medical reasons). Are you going to ask them to remove the face mask?
????
It was brought up about sportsgear and weather, which i argued that its not same scenario for a burqa wearer as the weather has no affect on a burqa wearer who use religion as an excuse to create barriers.0 -
Compulsion smells of fear that this won’t happen anyway. Like any religion, Islam is a ball of smoke that vanishes under scrutiny. You don’t need a law to make this kind of thing an irrelevance.gurramok wrote:If we want integration in western culture, burqa wearers should adapt to the sensitivity of our society and western values
If people want to cover their heads because they think God will get all upset if they don't, let them. Just feel equally confident about exploring the tenuous basis for that belief, and expressing the result should the opportunity arise.
Western society is a valuable creation, but there's no point in adopting a defence that destroys the very thing you want to protect.0 -
Advertisement
-
aidan24326 wrote:My whole point is why should religion be given this kind of special treatment at all?
There is at present no special treatment for muslims in this matter - the proposal before us is to introduce special treatment, in disallowing muslim women the same freedom of dress that (up till now) we all currently enjoy.
And I still don't think anybody has made a case for doing so.
Dermot0
Advertisement