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

The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

Options
1…2021222426

Comments

  • Options
    #692
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    anymore wrote: »
    No she is just saying the dire predictions didnt materialise - good news.:)

    Well I was being some what flippant.

    Ultimately whether the dire predictions happen or not is irrelevant. It simply shows that Muslims are not the extreme monsters some make them out to be.

    It doesn't increase the right the State has to trample on personal freedoms, particularly when the idea is that they are supposed to be protecting freedoms.


  • Options
    #693
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    sirromo wrote: »
    Only some women?

    He believes all women who wear it are forced by men. I know three women who wear it and all do of their own free will. I want to see if he even accepts that some women who wear it do so of their own free will.


  • Options
    #694
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    anymore wrote: »
    Do YOU wear a burqa of your own free will ? :confused::confused::confused::confused:

    You have not answered the question so I will ask it a third time:

    How will banning the burqa stop Christian 'honour killings' in the UK?


  • Options
    #695
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    Laminations wrote: »
    As mentioned about 40 pages ago the wording of a poll would be crucial. I'd be against banning but for restrictions. Although in place of restrictions i'd settle for the introduction of an educational campaign in schools and colleges.
    I am happy to have it worded other than as i suggested.


  • Options
    #696
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    irishconvert wrote: »
    You have not answered the question so I will ask it a third time:

    How will banning the burqa stop Christian 'honour killings' in the UK?

    How will the banning stop Muslim honour killings?

    No one has even answered that one yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #697
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    irishconvert wrote: »
    He believes all women who wear it are forced by men. I know three women who wear it and all do of their own free will. I want to see if he even accepts that some women who wear it do so of their own free will.
    Yes if they have not been brainwashed since childhood into thinking there is some religious or cultural obligation upon them to do so. Which is why I was looking to explore the origins of burqa wearing.

    Mr Bernard Henri Levy, in the Huffungton Post article raised the question of the freedom to wear the burqa:
    Get it out of your mind that malicious husbands, abusive fathers, and local tyrants are forcing the burqa on women who don't want to wear it.....
    Fine. Except that voluntary servitude has never held water as an argument.....
    My limited intellect, education and ability to express myself adequately shouldnt detract from those who are much better able to articulate the case against burqa wearing. read the article and see what you think :
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/why-i-support-a-ban-on-bu_b_463192.html


  • Options
    #698
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    anymore wrote: »
    Yes if they have not been brainwashed since childhood into thinking there is some religious or cultural obligation upon them to do so. Which is why I was looking to explore the origins of burqa wearing.

    Great, we are getting somewhere. Although the origins of it are irrelevant.

    So you finally admit there are women who wear the burqa of their own free will. So by banning it you are opressing these women when the reasons given for banning it is to stop opression of women.

    What kind of punishment do you think should be imposed on these women if they continue wear it despite the ban?


  • Options
    #699
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    irishconvert wrote: »
    You have not answered the question so I will ask it a third time:

    How will banning the burqa stop Christian 'honour killings' in the UK?
    Tell you what, could you get me links to articles on specific Christian so called ' honour murders,' preferably two or more and I will read them and reply.


  • Options
    #700
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    anymore wrote: »
    Tell you what, could you get me links to articles on specific Christian so called ' honour murders,' preferably two or more and I will read them and reply.

    I already did about two pages back but here it is again. I presume the BBC is a good enough source for you to believe:
    BBC wrote:
    Scotland Yard believe there were 12 'honour killings' in the UK last year and said they were not restricted to Muslims, but also occurred in Sikh and Christian families.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3149030.stm

    So at least 1 in 12 honour killings in the UK are committed by Christians. Kind of blows a hole in your argument doesn't it?


  • Options
    #701
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    irishconvert wrote: »
    I already did about two pages back but here it is again. I presume the BBC is a good enough source for you to believe:


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3149030.stm

    So at least 1 in 12 honour killings in the UK are committed by Christians. Kind of blows a hole in your argument doesn't it?

    Thank you. I had read that one but it is not specific and has no details whatsoever. It seems to be a case of being 'sensitive' in the reporting of one specific instance of a killing.
    Anyone else got references to Christian killings of this sort ?
    So at least 1 in 12 honour killings in the UK are committed by Christians. Kind of blows a hole in your argument doesn't it?

    How do conclude from that article that 1 in 12 honour murders in the UK are committed by Christians ?

    What this article does show is the tragic outcomes that can come from the curse of ' Culturalism'. From my point of view the faster we become more like each other, then the better the world will be.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #702
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    anymore wrote: »
    Thank you. I had read that one but it is not specific and has no details whatsoever. It seems to be a case of being 'sensitive' in the reporting of one specific instance of a killing.
    Anyone else got references to Christian killings of this sort ?



    How do conclude from that article that 1 in 12 honour murders in the UK are committed by Christians ?
    It's quite easily when you take off your blindfold. The UK police said:
    BBC wrote:
    Scotland Yard believe there were 12 'honour killings' in the UK last year and said they were not restricted to Muslims, but also occurred in Sikh and Christian families.
    If these 12 murders also occured in Sikh and Christian families than at least one of them has to have occured in a Christian family. It could be more than one but because it is not specific we can only guarantee that it was one Christian family.

    So we are being told by the UK police themselves that at least 1 in 12 honour killings in the UK are comitted by Christian families.

    Now you are refusing to accept facts presented to you that show honour killings also happen in Christian and Sikh families in the UK.
    anymore wrote: »
    What this article does show is the tragic outcomes that can come from the curse of ' Culturalism'. From my point of view the faster we become more like each other, then the better the world will be.
    Ok, that is just a joke now.


  • Options
    #703
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Laminations wrote: »
    Evidence based principles always trump beliefs. Not covering ones face is a very small freedom to forego to protect openness and equality.

    As it targets an already demonised segment of society, I fail to see how its going to do anything for "openess and equality". In fact, it may give the item of clothing in question a certain 'rebel chic'.


  • Options
    #704
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    irishconvert wrote: »
    It's quite easily when you take off your blindfold. The UK police said:

    If these 12 murders also occured in Sikh and Christian families than at least one of them has to have occured in a Christian family. It could be more than one but because it is not specific we can only guarantee that it was one Christian family.

    So we are being told by the UK police themselves that at least 1 in 12 honour killings in the UK are comitted by Christian families.

    Now you are refusing to accept facts presented to you that show honour killings also happen in Christian and Sikh families in the UK.


    Ok, that is just a joke now.
    I dont want to sound too pedantic, but the quote refers to one year and cant be taken to infer a general statement that one in 12 honour murders are by Christians. However in one honour murder by a christian is one too many.
    My reason for looking for specific references have as much to do with interest in matter such as Catholic clerical abuse and abuses inspired in any way by the effects of the catholic church's teachings and culture as it has to do with this thread.

    My last remark was not in any intended to be a joke. The reality is that we all come from the same small gene pool.
    It is ironic really that the bible was hinting at the truth in referring to an Eve. As I undertand it all our genes come from the same small group of females. Even more ironic that there will be a 'final day' on earth. The sun will sometime in the distant future stop being our ' friend' and will kill all it living life on earth. So maybe there will be a hell after all - except it will not be in the after life, but here on planet earth !


  • Options
    #705
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    anymore wrote: »
    I dont want to sound too pedantic, but the quote refers to one year and cant be taken to infer a general statement that one in 12 honour murders are by Christians. However in one honour murder by a christian is one too many.

    Ok, so now that we have established and agree that Christian honour killings do take place in the UK, and taking into account you support the banning of the burqa as you claim it is linked to honour killings amoung Muslims, what Christian symbol or item of clothing do you think should be banned in order to stop Christian honour killings?


  • Options
    #706
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Nodin wrote: »
    As it targets an already demonised segment of society, I fail to see how its going to do anything for "openess and equality". In fact, it may give the item of clothing in question a certain 'rebel chic'.

    That they are demonised is another issue. If someone of the belief that machete-carrying was their right, it wouldn't matter if they were demonised on not. It is the practice we need to debate. And aren't balaclavas 'rebel chic'? cos I'm against the habitual wearing of balaclavas too.


  • Options
    #707
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    irishconvert wrote: »
    Ok, so now that we have established and agree that Christian honour killings do take place in the UK, and taking into account you support the banning of the burqa as you claim it is linked to honour killings amoung Muslims, what Christian symbol or item of clothing do you think should be banned in order to stop Christian honour killings?
    Well I wanted to see what it was that motivated the killings which is why I needed references to the actual killing or killings. A general reference by the BBC could be motivated as much by ' cultural' sesitivity 'as anything else.
    I guess I will have to try it or them myself.


  • Options
    #708
    irishconvert
    Registered Users Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    anymore wrote: »
    Well I wanted to see what it was that motivated the killings which is why I needed references to the actual killing or killings. A general reference by the BBC could be motivated as much by ' cultural' sesitivity 'as anything else.
    I guess I will have to try it or them myself.

    Ok well whatever. I am not going to waste anymore of my time debating with someone who ignores plain facts when they are put on front of them.


  • Options
    #709
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    wes wrote: »
    As it stands, I have to take the word of a random socologists that you quoted, who then quotes a vague number of studies, carried out by out European countries, does that mean the governments or an institution of some kind?

    Patrick Weil is an emminent French historian and political scientist. He is a research fellow at CNRS, at the Centre for the social history of the 20th century at the University of Paris 1. He studies the history of immigration in France. In 1992 he received the research prize of the National Assembly of France for his work La France et ses étrangers.

    He worked as Chief of Staff of the Secretariat of State for immigrants in 1981 and 1982, and was a member of the Stasi Commission, and a member of the board of the Cité Nationale de l’Histoire de l’Immigration (Museum of the History of Immigration) - a position which, with seven others, he resigned on 18 May 2007, in protest against the creation of a ministry of immigration and national identity by Nicolas Sarkozy

    The studies were carried out by a number of Universities in Europe and the information from these was correlated by Centre for Gender Studies in Europe .

    Not really a random sociologist nor does he appear to hold a bias.


  • Options
    #710
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    Wicknight wrote: »
    So basically what you are saying is that the radical extreme Islam that this ban is supposed to be protecting people against doesn't exist?

    Brilliant, the ban is even more pointless.

    No - these were some of the preceived arugements put forward by interested parties at the time. Preceived problems came form articles I looked at on the Times website.


  • Options
    #711
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    Wicknight wrote: »
    A very common scenario for honour killings is that the daughter of the family begins a relationship with a non-Muslim, or simply a Muslim not approved by the family.

    The father or son then feels to compelled to kill the daugther to erase the shame that they believe her behavior has brought to the family.

    Please explain how a Burka ban does anything to prevent that scenario or one like it?

    All a Burka ban does is tell Muslim women that instead of their parents telling them what they can and cannot wear the State is now going to tell them what they can and cannot wear.

    The out come of this is that it enshrines in law the concept that Muslim women do not have the right to decide themselves what they wear.

    It does nothing for honor killing except validate the principle behind them, that women are too delicate or silly or irresponsible to be left to make up their own mind about themselves and must be controlled.

    Someone asked what the connection was - and I said they both make women invisible in society or something like that.

    I haven't said I feel banning the burqa will directly stop honour killings although I do think in some cases it may have an indirect influence on this practice.

    Please don't draw a mad conclusion and say will what you must mean then is.
    I mean what I say nothing more.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #712
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    GuanYin wrote: »
    But this has really nothing to do with Irish women being held back in society.

    It isn't as if someone is going to force you to wear a burqa because other people choose to.

    It appears to me, to be hardcare plain xenophobia that has been dressed up in this thread as, among other things, feminism, health care, human rights etc etc etc...

    Well if you explain yourself articulately then I may draw more accurate conclusions.

    It has everything to do with women being held back in Irish society in the context of what we were discussing at the time in the thread.

    It appears to me that you draw the strange and/or the wrong conclusions from peoples posts, some of the things you conclude do not even warrant a reply.

    As I don't have the ability to properly articulate the problems and points to you, you will have to forgive me if I don't try.

    Its all just conjecture anyway - France will be an interesting test case


  • Options
    #713
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,573 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @Irishconvert
    Ok, so now that we have established and agree that Christian honour killings do take place in the UK, and taking into account you support the banning of the burqa as you claim it is linked to honour killings amoung Muslims, what Christian symbol or item of clothing do you think should be banned in order to stop Christian honour killings?

    Which Christian symbol or item of clothing so overtly expresses the subjugation and marginalisation of women like the burqa?

    Banning the burqa may not stop *christian* honour killings directly, but it will remove one more tool backward patriarchal cultures use to subjugate women. Why is that a bad thing?
    So you finally admit there are women who wear the burqa of their own free will. So by banning it you are opressing these women when the reasons given for banning it is to stop opression of women.

    Do you admit that at least some women are compelled to wear the burqa to satisfy the demands of a male dominated culture?

    I am sure there are women who do wear the burqa by choice. I am equally sure there are women who cut themselves by choice.


  • Options
    #714
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    Patrick Weil is an emminent French historian and political scientist. He is a research fellow at CNRS, at the Centre for the social history of the 20th century at the University of Paris 1. He studies the history of immigration in France. In 1992 he received the research prize of the National Assembly of France for his work La France et ses étrangers.

    He worked as Chief of Staff of the Secretariat of State for immigrants in 1981 and 1982, and was a member of the Stasi Commission, and a member of the board of the Cité Nationale de l’Histoire de l’Immigration (Museum of the History of Immigration) - a position which, with seven others, he resigned on 18 May 2007, in protest against the creation of a ministry of immigration and national identity by Nicolas Sarkozy

    Okay, good to know.

    Still, my point about the 2 situations not be analogus stands, and I also think that definition of "success", was set incredibly low, as I don't see any information on how anyone was helped by the legislation. All you provided was that some dire predictions didn't come to pass, but neither does it appear to have helped anyone either.
    sparkling sea wrote: »
    The studies were carried out by a number of Universities in Europe and the information from these was correlated by Centre for Gender Studies in Europe .

    Not really a random sociologist nor does he appear to hold a bias.

    Ok, so how come you still haven't provided a link for your source? You know so I can actually look at the studies being cited?

    So any chance you can link your source, so I can actually have a quick look at some of these studies being cited, and what there methodology etc was.


  • Options
    #715
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Sand wrote: »
    Banning the burqa may not stop *christian* honour killings directly, but it will remove one more tool backward patriarchal cultures use to subjugate women. Why is that a bad thing?

    One could argue that marriage is also a tool that backward patriarchal cultures also use to subjugate women. Would banning it also be a good thing on this basis?

    The tool is neither the problem nor the cause. Banning it denies those who freely wish to avail of it for other reasons their freedoms. In effect, a ban would be subjugating them to conform to a worldview they do not agree with.

    Now, it may be a worldview that you or I agree with...but does that give us the right to force others to conform to it against their wishes?


  • Options
    #716
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    wes wrote: »
    Okay, good to know.

    Still, my point about the 2 situations not be analogus stands, and I also think that definition of "success", was set incredibly low, as I don't see any information on how anyone was helped by the legislation. All you provided was that some dire predictions didn't come to pass, but neither does it appear to have helped anyone either.

    Ok, so how come you still haven't provided a link for your source? You know so I can actually look at the studies being cited?

    So any chance you can link your source, so I can actually have a quick look at some of these studies being cited, and what there methodology etc was.

    It would be fairly easy for you to clarify the information if you go into Athens, if you don't believe me.

    Before I get a warning - I have provided in my opinion a satisfactory amount information

    Patrick Weils website would be another point of reference, but I am sure you are aware of this.

    I think at this stage some people aren't open to taking on board information provided and really just want to say " I dont believe you" or "I dont agree with the information".

    As I have said before I could be wrong, I am not in anyway sure that I am right but on the balancing of rights, I would be in favour of banning the burqa because of the reasons I have already given. A ban on indirect harm always worries me.

    This discussion is just going round in circles now and everyone is just repeating what they have posted already so I will bid you all farewell.


  • Options
    #717
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,573 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    One could argue that marriage is also a tool that backward patriarchal cultures also use to subjugate women. Would banning it also be a good thing on this basis?

    If you could demonstrate that marraige brought about an equivalent level of marginalisation and exclusion specifically on females entering it (the burqa being specifically aimed at marginalising women, whilst men bemoan the impact of marraige at least as much if not more than women), then yes you could probably make that argument.

    You probably cant though.
    The tool is neither the problem nor the cause. Banning it denies those who freely wish to avail of it for other reasons their freedoms. In effect, a ban would be subjugating them to conform to a worldview they do not agree with.

    Sure, thats true to some extent. Nudists are forced to conform to worldviews they do not agree with too. Id happily settle for banning children from wearing the burqa in any area the state has influence, but once someone reaches 18 they can do what they like. That would to me be a happy compromise between the right to marginalise oneself and breaking a cycle of indoctrination.

    With the burqa, youve got a chicken or egg factor...did women become marginalised because they wore the burqa or did they wear the burqa because they were marginalised? Either way, to break the cycle, removing the burqa is a postive step.
    Now, it may be a worldview that you or I agree with...but does that give us the right to force others to conform to it against their wishes?

    Whose wishes? The childrens wishes? Or their families wishes to indoctrinate and marginalise their own children?

    And yes, as a society we do force people to conform with worldviews that they may not agree with.


  • Options
    #718
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    As I don't have the ability to properly articulate the problems and points to you, you will have to forgive me if I don't try.

    That is fine as long as you don't use the said problems and points you are unable back up or elaborate as debate points in the discussion.


  • Options
    #719
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Laminations wrote: »
    That they are demonised is another issue. If someone of the belief that machete-carrying was their right, it wouldn't matter if they were demonised on not. It is the practice we need to debate. And aren't balaclavas 'rebel chic'? cos I'm against the habitual wearing of balaclavas too.

    It's not a machete. Its a piece of cloth.


  • Options
    #720
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    GuanYin wrote: »
    That is fine as long as you don't use the said problems and points you are unable back up or elaborate as debate points in the discussion.

    Its pointless having a debate with someone who can't or won't understand your points . They dont have to agree with them.

    Providing independant information to back up my points isn't the problem.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #721
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    It would be fairly easy for you to clarify the information if you go into Athens, if you don't believe me.

    How exactly are you getting the information then?

    Also, why haven't you named the Universitites that did the research? Also, I find it very very odd that the report that collates all the Universities research isn't avaliable online. Surely, there must be a summary reported in a media outlet at the very least.
    sparkling sea wrote: »
    Before I get a warning - I have provided in my opinion a satisfactory amount information

    Yet, still no link to the information. Where are you quotes coming from exactly? What web site, article, book, or journal was what Patrick Weils quote came from. I have no idea what it is your quoting from, and I personally don't have the time to go looking for other people sources.
    sparkling sea wrote: »
    Patrick Weils website would be another point of reference, but I am sure you are aware of this.

    Well, no I am not aware that he even had a web site, seeing as you didn't acknowledge where it is you got the quote from Patrick Weils from. I don't know who the guy is really. The quote could have been from a news outlet for all I know. Is the quote from the website, and if it is then where exactly on the web site are you quoting from then? Why are you so dead set on providing link to the stuff you quote? I personally don't have time to go trawling web sites, so I can see the article you are posting.

    Personally, if aren't bothered enough to provide this, then I will disregard it, as I can't read the original context of Patrick Weils comment myself. If its on his web site, then surely you can provide a link to the page, where he make these comments?
    sparkling sea wrote: »
    I think at this stage some people aren't open to taking on board information provided and really just want to say " I dont believe you" or "I dont agree with the information".

    You can believe whatever you wish, but it is not unreasonable to ask you where you are getting you quotes from. You don't even quote the magazine, or book, or web page the information is coming from, so I can't go and read the entire article myself.

    I have no idea why you refuse to provide, where you are taking your quotes from. I find the continued refusal to provide information, that you must have puzzling, and if you continue to refuse to provide it, then I see no reason why I should accept your information, if you are unable to state where it is you have gotten it from.

    Also, I did take your information into account in my previous posts, and made several observations and asked question of the data provided, and you never replied or acknowledged any of it, and simply decided to ignore any counter arguement, and are now some how suggesting your information was not acknowledged, when it most definetly was. All I did was ask simple questions about the content provided, and where exactly you got the information from, as I could delve into it a bit more, but you have refused to provide where it is you got your quotes from repeatedly, and instead expect me to go to Athens, which really bizarre, as there must be some kind of information avaliable online, or even a summary by the media some place, and you must have gotten your information from some where, be it a book, a jounral or online some place. So instead of providing this, I am told to go to Athens. You are not doing your argument any favours by not providing simple information, that you must have, seeing you are quoting it.

    You have refused to say where you have gotten your information from, for some odd reason. It make it next to impossible to deal with what you saying in any kind of reasonable fashion, and I simply don't have time to go to Athens or trawl the web to find where the quote you used came from.


Advertisement