Wear a burqa - face a €750 fine

jimmycrackcorm

Heroditas wrote: »

I don't think removing the burqa will improve the careless/dangerous driving.

True - it's still a woman driver underneath.

CrazyRabbit

General Zod wrote: »

nope. There's no prohibition on having your face covered anywhere public.

Yup, but try walking into a store with a motorcycle helmet on and you quickly see how welcome you are.

Mike 1972

Nowhere in the Qur'an does it state that a woman must wear one.

What has that got to anything ?

Nowhere in the antenna designers handbook does it specify I have to wear any clothes at all (other than a hard hat and safety boots when working at heights).

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Yup, but try walking into a store with a motorcycle helmet on and you quickly see how welcome you are.

Doesnt stop anyone from weatring one in the street though. Cant you tell the difference ?

Agricola wrote: »

its fast becoming secular Europe. When we go to their country / region, we are expected to adhere to their rules

Nothing secular about making laws about how an individual is allowed to dress.

Kipperhell wrote: »

Female friends working in Islamic countries were told they had to wear the Burka when outside the offices. Tv presenters showed similar but maybe it isn't a legal requirement .

I have access to television channels from over a dozen predominantly Islamic countries and have yet to see a presnter wearing a Burka.

tudlytops wrote: »

Well if I travel to most Islamic countries as a women I am required to wear an Islamic veil regardless of my believes, so why shouldn't they have to take it off when coming to our countries?

Because as a country we like to kid ourselves we are more progressive than some backwater theocratic shytehole ?

mike65 wrote: »

France has about 3.5 million muslims, this sounds like a revenue raising excerise.

More like an incitment to widespread public disorder/terrorism

monkeypants

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Yup, but try walking into a store with a motorcycle helmet on and you quickly see how welcome you are.

My Da does that all the time and refuses to take it off if it's raining. Makes quite a fuss about it if queried. But then again, he's 68 and giving out about "nowadays" is what older folks do.

WindSock

I don't like the 'if we were in their country we would have to wear one' argument. Surely that is what makes our country better?

In saying that though, I think forcing anyone to wear or to not wear an item of clothing is stupid. If these Burqha wearing women were forced by their families to wear them, then they most likely will be forced to not go out in public with their 'rapeable' faces again.

Mike 1972

WindSock wrote: »

If these Burqha wearing women were forced by their families to wear them.

In France if the women are adults and not being held against their will then their family cannot force them to do anything ?

Morlar

WindSock wrote: »

most likely will be forced to not go out in public with their 'rapeable' faces again.

Does this mean the govt should back down anytime anyone threatens to do something illegal if they don't get their way ? If muslim families are imprisoning their daughters/mothers/sisters they should be prosecuted vigorously. Saying we can't ban burkas because some neanderthal might imprison female family members is retarded.

techdiver

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/dubai/6949008/British-woman-arrested-in-Dubai-after-being-raped.html

as alluded to in - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055791867

Of course the excuse for this is that it was a Muslim country, so now the shoe is on the other foot. Fair play France.

wes

techdiver wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/dubai/6949008/British-woman-arrested-in-Dubai-after-being-raped.html

as alluded to in - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055791867

Of course the excuse for this is that it was a Muslim country, so now the shoe is on the other foot. Fair play France.

So we should be more like Dubai then?

WindSock

Mike 1972 wrote: »

In France if the women are adults and not being held against their will then their family cannot force them to do anything ?

Of course they can be prosecuted if taken to court. However when a person is under control in a domestically abusive situation, most of the time they won't take action out of fear, and or not realising what is happening to them is wrong.

Morlar wrote: »

Saying we can't ban burkas because some neanderthal might imprison female family members is retarded.

Well, I didn't say that it can't be banned because imprisonment might happen. I just said that it might happen. If a person can control what another wears, they can just as easily control and manipulate any other aspect of their lives.

techdiver

wes wrote: »

So we should be more like Dubai then?

No.

I was just making the point that when a westerner falls fowl of archaic Islamic law the apologists excuse is that they are in an Islamic state and you must abide by their rules blady-bla....

RedPlanet

But France is a secular country, so shouldn't we also apply the same sort of rules against religous costumes worn by all the other religions there?

wes

techdiver wrote: »

No.

Alright.

techdiver wrote: »

I was just making the point that when a westerner falls fowl of archaic Islamic law the apologists excuse is that they are in an Islamic state and you must abide by their rules blady-bla....

I don't remember anyone here saying that people should break the law, or that they shouldn't be adhered to. I don't see your point really, unless people here were saying people should break the law. The French law is a new one and people are making there opinions known about it.

Mike 1972

RedPlanet wrote: »

But France is a secular country, so shouldn't we also apply the same sort of rules against religous costumes worn by all the other religions there?

True like Nuns habits and Sikhs turbans and suchlike.

WindSock wrote: »

If a person can control what another wears, they can just as easily control and manipulate any other aspect of their lives.

Or a state.................


Surely they could make a law banning one item of clothing there is nothing to stop them extending it to other forms of clothing until they only thing one is allowed to wear is brown shirts and black boots............

techdiver

wes wrote: »

Alright.



I don't remember anyone here saying that people should break the law, or that they shouldn't be adhered to. I don't see your point really, unless people here were saying people should break the law. The French law is a new one and people are making there opinions known about it.

I'm not sure you are clear on what I am saying, so I'll give it a go.

1) I support the new French Law.
2) My point was just a round about way of saying what's good for the goose (westerners in an Islamic state) is good for the gander (Muslim living in a secular western state).
3) I believe more such laws should be introduced and that all societies should be completely secular and devoid of nut jobs from any religion whether it be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Church of the Fonz . I have nothing against religion, but keep it behind closed doors as far as I'm concerned, there is no place for it in the running of a state.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote: »

But France is a secular country, so shouldn't we also apply the same sort of rules against religous costumes worn by all the other religions there?

Havent they already banned crosses, Jewish dress, and hijabs in schools? The banning of the burqua would seem like a continuation of this.

It looks really freaky when the wind catches them, like Bishop Brennan in Father Ted when he got kicked up the arse and is charging back to the house.

techdiver

Deleted User wrote: »

Havent they already banned crosses, Jewish dress, and hijabs in schools? The banning of the burqua would seem like a continuation of this.

It looks really freaky when the wind catches them, like Bishop Brennan in Father Ted when he got kicked up the arse and is charging back to the house.

Not to mention it conceals your identity which can be used in the line of criminal activity. If I wore a balaclava down the middle of Dublin it wouldn't be too long before the Gardai would have a word with me.

wes

techdiver wrote: »

1) I support the new French Law.

Alright.

techdiver wrote: »

2) My point was just a round about way of saying what's good for the goose (westerners in an Islamic state) is good for the gander (Muslim living in a secular western state).

You said you didn't want to be like Dubai, but now you justifying you support for this law, because Islamic states do the same thing. Which is it then?

techdiver wrote: »

3) I believe more such laws should be introduced and that all societies should be completely secular and devoid of nut jobs from any religion whether it be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Church of the Fonz . I have nothing against religion, but keep it behind closed doors as far as I'm concerned, there is no place for it in the running of a state.

What does someone wearing a burqa or a cross or a turban, have to do with running a state? I don't see how your justification makes any sense here. Also, banning people wearing Religous items on the street isn't secularism of any kind, and what people wear outside has nothing to do with running a state.

speedboatchase

Personally I find the burqa to be an appalling, backwards device to subjugate women under their husbands control that has no place in 21st century society.


However I do understand both sides of people's arguments here. Extremist Muslims that would be up in arms over this wouldn't bat an eyelid to subjecting YOU to adhere to their customs in an Islamic-majority state. On the other hand, it is a bit extreme and I'm sure a lot of people will find it unfair, it is only clothes after all.

My approach, would be that the burqa should not be banned, in the same way Sikh turbans, cross necklaces shouldn't be either. However, because the burqa almost completely covers the face certain restrictions have to applied, you should not be allowed wear the burqa when providing any photo identification or being a teacher (a big court case transpired around such an incident) for example, which surely most people can agree with. Other than that, as I said earlier, if you want to walk around dressed up as a postbox that's your prerogative

I do feel however that Western Society is overly worried about offending Muslim sensibilities and that any sensible, grounded measures such as that one I've proposed make sense and should be enforced

RedPlanet

Deleted User wrote: »

Havent they already banned crosses, Jewish dress, and hijabs in schools? The banning of the burqua would seem like a continuation of this.

Well i don't know. But i was recently in Paris and I saw some religious costumes worn by nuns and priests.
I also suspect Jews are allowed that little bini or whatever it's called on there heads.

Kipperhell

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I have access to television channels from over a dozen predominantly Islamic countries and have yet to see a presnter wearing a Burka.

The Amber Trail was on before Christmas and the tv presenter had to wear a Burka. Never said TV presenter on their tv need wear one. Friends visiting such countries had to wear such outfits and were still cursed on the street as western woman.

The TV you have access to is probably not local TV as in recent years some media channels were closed for things such as allowing woman to sing on television. Satellite TV from such countries doesn't equate understanding all such Islamic countries that do enforce Berka wearing but I am not aware if such countries have laws stating such but you still have to do it.

Religious ideals are forced upon people and I dislike it but I actually have no problem with secular laws outlawing practices of many types including religious activities within reason. Wearing a turbine on a motor cycle and no motorcycle helmet is about the limit of acceptability IMHO.

The Mormon's used to allow multiple marriages for a man, just as the state was going to ban such activity the head of the church comes out and says this is no longer part of the religion. What a magically religion

BigDuffman

So far it seems that only France and Australia have grown a pair in dealing with extreme views.

Mike 1972

BigDuffman wrote: »

So far it seems that only France and Australia have grown a pair in dealing with extreme views.

Except their own

Kipperhell wrote: »

Friends visiting such countries had to wear such outfits .

Which countries specifically ? The Burqua is commonly worn in only a handful of predominantly muslim countries. None of which would be considered popular tourist destinations.

Kipperhell wrote: »

and were still cursed on the street as western woman

If they were wearing actual Burqua's how would anyone know where thery were from ?

speedboatchase

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Except their own



Which countries specifically ? The Burqua is commonly worn in only a handful of predominantly muslim countries. None of which would be considered popular tourist destinations.



If they were wearing actual Burqua's how would anyone know where thery were from ?

What would that have to do with anything? I wouldn't consider France's views extreme, especially if you were to put them alongside that of actual extreme regimes in the Middle East

iguana

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If they were wearing actual Burqua's how would anyone know where thery were from ?

They fashioned their burqas out of American flags.;)

http://www.zarinas.com/imagesx/burqa_usa1.jpg

Dravokivich

grizzly wrote: »

That takes care of only half the problem. They'll have to figure out how to fine the men as well. A beard tax?

coming from a guy that calls himself Grizzly?

wes

BigDuffman wrote: »

So far it seems that only France and Australia have grown a pair in dealing with extreme views.

I don't know about that the National Front in France are still there, and Australia seems to have issues with people attacking Indians. Seems to me that the Burqa ban won't effect those extreme views personally .

iguana

Kipperhell wrote: »

The Mormon's used to allow multiple marriages for a man, just as the state was going to ban such activity the head of the church comes out and says this is no longer part of the religion. What a magically religion

Mormon's traditionally practised actual polygamy, multiple spouses not multiple wives. Many Mormon women had multiple husbands too, for example 6 of Brigham Young's wives were known to have other husbands. When the law changed the church split in several directions. The main church of Mormon LDS stopped giving permission for plural marriages once the law changed but it was another 3 years before Wilford Woodruff 'recieved' the message from the Jesus to stop the practice. Obviously this was a strategic move as Utah had already been refused permission to become a state and this revelation was what made it possible for Utah to be given the powers of a state.

But mormons who were unhappy with this split into several break away churches. The most notable being the FLDS who practice polygyny, which is the prcctise of taking multiple wives, today.

Kipperhell

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Which countries specifically ? The Burqua is commonly worn in only a handful of predominantly muslim countries. None of which would be considered popular tourist destinations.

There were there on business and I don't recall which countries but it does happen why does it matter which countries? It happens and it is known to be in place.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If they were wearing actual Burqua's how would anyone know where thery were from ?

They were with security as advised by the Irish Embassy so they were easy to spot. Having white skin and blue eyes is visible too not all require to veil the eyes.

Why are you trying to deny this stuff, you might as well be saying Irish people don't drink Guinness

iguana

Kipperhell wrote: »

They were with security as advised by the Irish Embassy so they were easy to spot. Having white skin and blue eyes is visible too not all require to veil the eyes.

You don't have a clue what a burqa is, do you. With a burqa you can not see any of the person. You are talking about a hijab.

twinytwo

tudlytops wrote: »

Well if I travel to most Islamic countries as a women I am required to wear an Islamic veil regardless of my believes, so why shouldn't they have to take it off when coming to our countries?

there in lies the problem... they come to non islamic counrties and demand freedom of religion etc etc... now what do u think would happen if i went to some of the islamic countries and tried to set up a catholic church?...

iguana

twinytwo wrote: »

there in lies the problem... they come to non islamic counrties and demand freedom of religion etc etc...

"They" come to secular countries where freedom of worship is guaranteed and expect to be free to practice their religion.

God damn their presumption!:mad::rolleyes:

philologos

unkel wrote: »

A bit extreme, isn't it? Freedom of expression and all that?

That said, there is a woman living my housing estate in Lucan who wears a burqa while driving a car. A case for careless / dangerous driving?

I've seen people in my area wearing them as well. It wouldn't be my choice, but people should have the right to wear the burqa. It is a denial of freedom of religion otherwise.

SprostonGreen

Proper order too, fcuking savages.

Morlar

Jakkass wrote: »

It is a denial of freedom of religion otherwise.

No it's not.

Kipperhell

iguana wrote: »

You don't have a clue what a burqa is, do you. With a burqa you can not see any of the person. You are talking about a hijab.

No I don't know the precise name for everything that has to be worn in every country. I will however believe a professional person visiting another country was forced by religion to conceal everything but her eyes. Any such instance should be changed and I agree with the French idea. For all I know they wore full eyes hidden stuff and it was alone the security or they saw her hands. They knew she was a western woman and were being racist

If you want to be pedantic about it go ahead but your precision is not actually changing the reality of the issues surrounding such religion/cultural clothing.

The name of the clothing matters nought to me the reality of concealed faces for religion/culture does.

Why people want to flit around making excuses or making it out to be some overblown concept to consider mystifies me. I think it is heavy handed and probably won't pass doesn't mean it is a bad idea. The French are very protective of their culture and have not been doing a good job with integration we are going a similar route with very little consideration of integration.

Kipperhell

iguana wrote: »

"They" come to secular countries where freedom of worship is guaranteed and expect to be free to practice their religion.

God damn their presumption!:mad::rolleyes:

Nobody has freedom to practice a religious activity that is against the law. It is a fallacy to think freedom of religion means you can do what ever your religious beliefs say. Their is no hypocrisy or conflict and in this case it is not actually required by the religion either.

speedboatchase

Grr, is there any common ground here? I agree that it shouldn't be banned but can the Islam defenders here find a problem with asking someone to remember a burqa to show photo identification?

Naikon

Those masks/dress are a bit silly tbh.

twinytwo

iguana wrote: »

"They" come to secular countries where freedom of worship is guaranteed and expect to be free to practice their religion.

God damn their presumption!:mad::rolleyes:

all you have to do is take a look at the problems caused in england..

philologos

Morlar wrote: »

No it's not.

They aren't free to express their faith as they see fit. Wearing a burqa is one of the means of doing so.

twinytwo: Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia should be our standard of how to deal with religion?

speedboatchase wrote: »

Grr, is there any common ground here? I agree that it shouldn't be banned but can the Islam defenders here find a problem with asking someone to remember a burqa to show photo identification?

Very easily accomodated. Get the woman to show her face to another woman police officer in private. In airports they do this by taking women with burqas to a side room.

sock puppet

twinytwo wrote: »

there in lies the problem... they come to non islamic counrties and demand freedom of religion etc etc... now what do u think would happen if i went to some of the islamic countries and tried to set up a catholic church?...

Ah so becoming a fundamentalist police state would solve all our problems. Got it.

twinytwo

sock puppet wrote: »

Ah so becoming a fundamentalist police state would solve all our problems. Got it.

good man yourself ...:rolleyes:

Some people like yourself dont get it... All this multicultural bs dosent work... it never has and never will. Just look at france or england etc.

Lone Stone

I remmeber years ago i was in a que and i was in my teens i think at the time and i turned around and saw a women in the full burga shebang all black i had to look like 5 time's cause at the time id no idea wtf i was looking at. Thought it was the grim reaper or some ****.

But anyway i agree with the frenchie's.
Frankly they can easily express there religious belief's in other way's.
No need to hide your face in public unless your a minger.

sock puppet

twinytwo wrote: »

good man yourself ...:rolleyes:

Some people like yourself dont get it... All this multicultural bs dosent work... it never has and never will. Just look at france or england or any other country .

Well I'm an atheist in this predominantly Catholic country so should I be shipped off somewhere else? Never has? Are you sure? you are aware that there are many peaceful countries in the world where people all follow different religions? Yeah look at England. Catholics and Protestants now live in harmont. "Multi-culturalism bs" seems to habe worked there.

hopalong85

SprostonGreen wrote: »

Proper order too, fcuking savages.

Is this s$it really acceptable?

twinytwo

sock puppet wrote: »

Well I'm an atheist in this predominantly Catholic country so should I be shipped off somewhere else? Never has? Are you sure? you are aware that there are many peaceful countries in the world where people all follow different religions? Yeah look at England. Catholics and Protestants now live in harmont. "Multi-culturalism bs" seems to habe worked there.

Again you miss the point ... its easy to say catholics and prodestants live in harmony.. what about NI?... or the numerous riots and flag burnings that have happened in england.. or the riots in france

southsiderosie

This whole debate about a burqa is ridiculous. There are very few women who wear them outside of Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. Even in Turkey, a Muslim country where many women wear hijab, it is startling to see a woman in a burqa or niqab. And yes, there is a difference, and the difference is significant.

Most Muslim women in France don't even wear hijab, must less burqas - and the state has already banned hijabs in public schools. At the time that law was proposed, there were just over 1,200 cases of schoolchildren wearing headscarves - out of a student population of over 9 million (see "Veil" by Christian Joppke).

The French would be better off dealing with the high unemployment and social deprivation within the banlieues, rather than passing inflammatory legislation that in reality is relevant to very few people beyond self-congratulatory politicians.

mardybumbum

Jakkass wrote: »

They aren't free to express their faith as they see fit.

So If I were to go around and stone homosexuals to death but made sure people knew it was an expression of my christian faith, that would be ok with you?
I doubt it somehow.

philologos

mardybumbum wrote: »

So If I were to go around and stone homosexuals to death but made sure people knew it was an expression of my christian faith, that would be ok with you?
I doubt it somehow.

1) Stoning anyone to death is not a part of Christian faith as a part of the New Covenant (Jesus & Apostles).
2) Interfering with other peoples freedoms, including that of life is of course is where the line ends.