Is Islam right for Ireland?

Taytoland

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Captain Obvious wrote: »

A great reason to encourage immigration to Europe. We set a fine example for the most part.

Because it's gone so well for Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, The UK?

Name one positive attribute mass immigration from Muslim nations has brought to the everyday European man woman or child?

Infrastructure industry is up with the new barriers for bridges and areas in high demand.

Roger Hassenforder

we've new neighbours, Palestinians.
Lovely, friendly people. They're making an effort to integrate as are the neighbours. Their kids practically live in my house with my kids.

But I think its incredibly sad that the 10yr old girl cant enjoy the sun on her shoulders and legs like her younger sisters and my daughter. She will soon have to wear the hijab like her older sister and mother, but she doesn't want to. Soon she will no longer be able to enjoy a warm summer breeze in her hair. That is derived from Islam.

Its a simple example of how you can have an issue with Islam as an ideology, but still enjoy the company of Muslims as people.

Hector Savage

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

we've new neighbours, Palestinians.
Lovely, friendly people. They're making an effort to integrate as are the neighbours. Their kids practically live in my house with my kids.

But I think its incredibly sad that the 10yr old girl cant enjoy the sun on her shoulders and legs like her younger sisters and my daughter. She will soon have to wear the hijab like her older sister and mother, but she doesn't want to. Soon she will no longer be able to enjoy a warm summer breeze in her hair. That is derived from Islam.

Its a simple example of how you can have an issue with Islam as an ideology, but still enjoy the company of Muslims as people.

Great post, very well put.

And it is sad, another little light extinguished ...

weldoninhio

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

we've new neighbours, Palestinians.
Lovely, friendly people. They're making an effort to integrate as are the neighbours. Their kids practically live in my house with my kids.

But I think its incredibly sad that the 10yr old girl cant enjoy the sun on her shoulders and legs like her younger sisters and my daughter. She will soon have to wear the hijab like her older sister and mother, but she doesn't want to. Soon she will no longer be able to enjoy a warm summer breeze in her hair. That is derived from Islam.

Its a simple example of how you can have an issue with Islam as an ideology, but still enjoy the company of Muslims as people.

I’m sure if she tells her parents that she doesn’t want to wear a hijab they’ll be fine with that. Aren’t the majority of Muslims “moderate”??

Captain Obvious

Brae100 wrote: »

Regardless, it is interesting that a progressive society have deemed it necessary to take action. There's obviously a problem.

Yeah but I don't think it's a proportional response to the issue.

2 Scoops wrote: »

So you'd prefer them not to integrate? What's your end game, I'm curious.

What's yours? To make up as many strawmen as you can? Mys issue is not with the goal but with the method.

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Because it's gone so well for Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, The UK?

Name one positive attribute mass immigration from Muslim nations has brought to the everyday European man woman or child?

I think exposure to other cultures is a positive thing and breeds greater acceptance to both sides. I don't think you can necessarily point to a person and say how did they benefit in the same way I can't point to a person and say how they benefit from Irelands foreign aid policy. Just because each individual doesn't get something tangible out of it doesn't make it a bad thing.

Hector Savage wrote: »

Typical, you are against it ...

Why would you be against proper integration and learning of western values ???

I'm not. I don't agree with that particular method and I don't think it would be considered legal either.

K.Flyer wrote: »

They are obviously very fed up with immigrants not wanting to integrate into the cultural norms of their country.
Denmark has always had very specific criteria for anyone who wants to come to settle down and it makes for interesting reading.

Being fed up with something doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want to address it. That's why Trump didn't get away with abducting children as a method to stop immigration. You have to have a response that's proportional to the issue. How is taking a one year old from his parents for 5 hours a day going to benefit anyone? And forcing them to learn about Christmas and Easter? That's nothing more than religious indoctrination on toddlers. How would you feel if you were an atheist in Ireland and your one year old was taken from you for five hours a day to be thought about Jesus? It's a completely over the top, authoritarian response. If a Muslim country had a similar policy for Christian children, the guys I just quoted would be using it as an example of the extremist Islamic methods that are so appalling to them.

Hector Savage

Hector Savage wrote: »

And it is sad, another little light extinguished ...

What? Do you judge women on their clothes? Why is her light extinguished?! You really basically writing a young girl off, she has no life because she wears a hijab
How sexist of you.....

Hector Savage

bubblypop wrote: »

What? Do you judge women on their clothes? Why is her light extinguished?! You really basically writing a young girl off, she has no life because she wears a hijab
How sexist of you.....

I know right ? - how sexist of me to think this is somehow dehumanizing ...

K.Flyer

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Being fed up with something doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want to address it. That's why Trump didn't get away with abducting children as a method to stop immigration. You have to have a response that's proportional to the issue. How is taking a one year old from his parents for 5 hours a day going to benefit anyone? And forcing them to learn about Christmas and Easter? That's nothing more than religious indoctrination on toddlers. How would you feel if you were an atheist in Ireland and your one year old was taken from you for five hours a day to be thought about Jesus? It's a completely over the top, authoritarian response. If a Muslim country had a similar policy for Christian children, the guys I just quoted would be using it as an example of the extremist Islamic methods that are so appalling to them.

The U.S. immigration detention and separation policies are nothing new and went on during Obama's time. Some of the pictures that hit the news to try and create anti-trump hysterica were actually taken in 2014.

Denmark has always had it's stricter than other countries rules when it came to immigration.

Basically their attitude is if you don't like how we do things here you can leave..

Here are some of their new criteria for Danish people coming back with non-national spouses.

In order to seek reunification, you have to pass Danish at level 3 (this is compulsory).
In order to seek reunification, you must either have been employed or self-employed for at least five years in Denmark.
In order to seek reunification, you have to have had at least five years of education in Denmark.
In order to come to Denmark, you have to speak reasonable English or pass Danish at level 1.
In order to come to Denmark, you have to have been in full-time employment or self-employed for three out of the last five years.
In order to come to Denmark, you have to have been in education for at least one year at a level comparable to a Danish higher education or Danish trade school education.

Odhinn

Hector Savage wrote: »

I know right ? - how sexist of me to think this is somehow dehumanizing ...

That's a burkha, not a hijab

Omackeral

Odhinn wrote: »

That's a burkha, not a hijab

That's him told so! Point negated completely.

Burkhas are a whole different kettle of fish themselves. Apart from being demhumanising, they're ridiculous from a security standpoint.

Captain Obvious

K.Flyer wrote: »

The U.S. immigration detention and separation policies are nothing new and went on during Obama's time. Some of the pictures that hit the news to try and create anti-trump hysterica were actually taken in 2014.

The policies were indeed new. The pictures from the Obama era were of unaccompanied children being housed for about three days in emergency shelters before being moved on. You can of course argue that this was a travesty. It really has nothing to do with the Trump policy of arresting parents, removing their children from them, detaining them for trials and then not reuniting them afterwards.

K.Flyer wrote: »

Denmark has always had it's stricter than other countries rules when it came to immigration.

Basically their attitude is if you don't like how we do things here you can leave..

Here are some of their new criteria for Danish people coming back with non-national spouses.

I'm not sure why you think that would change my view.

Roger Hassenforder

bubblypop wrote: »

What? Do you judge women on their clothes? Why is her light extinguished?! You really basically writing a young girl off, she has no life because she wears a hijab
How sexist of you.....

For a second i thought you were sarcastic, but I'm not so sure.

The crux of my post seems lost. She doesn't want to wear hijab...
Yet she will be forced to.
A bit like this crather:

https://twitter.com/ASJBaloch/status/1013899705711984642?s=19

Roger Hassenforder

Odhinn wrote: »

That's a burkha, not a hijab

Technically they're both hijab...

Both tokens of female emancipation, individuality and equality of sexes, a celebration of feminity if you will.

Captain Obvious

Hector Savage wrote: »

Great post, very well put.

And it is sad, another little light extinguished ...

Perhaps if she was still in Palestine and the anti immigrants had their way. As she is in Ireland she will be free to do as she pleases when she hits 18, probably sooner than that.

Hector Savage

Hector Savage wrote: »

I know right ? - how sexist of me to think this is somehow dehumanizing ...

That's a niqab.

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Perhaps if she was still in Palestine and the anti immigrants had their way. As she is in Ireland she will be free to do as she pleases when she hits 18, probably sooner than that.

Are you for real?
FFS. Just because she is in Ireland does not mean she can do what she pleases.

She is 10. She doesn't want to wear it. She will be made wear it.
And we're the sexist ones...
*rolls eyes

_Kaiser_

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Perhaps if she was still in Palestine and the anti immigrants had their way. As she is in Ireland she will be free to do as she pleases when she hits 18, probably sooner than that.

If you genuinely believe that - despite the facts and evidence of life for such girls/women in other Western European countries - then I'm afraid you've lost all remaining credibility with that statement.

It's a perfect example of the core problem of this mindset though... the reality is fundamentally different than the crusading agenda-driven narrative that the virtue-signalling left are peddling.

Thankfully the general electorate of those European countries are realising this for themselves and pushing back against this nonsense - which makes it even more unfortunate that Ireland will have to do things the hard way as usual thanks to sycophants like Varadkar, Coveney and Zappone.

jmayo

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Are you for real?
FFS. Just because she is in Ireland does not mean she can do what she pleases.

She is 10. She doesn't want to wear it. She will be made wear it.
And we're the sexist ones...
*rolls eyes

The thing is the muppets, both around here and in media, will vehemently defend and under the pretence of not being racist ensure her parents have the right to enforce a prehistoric dress code on this child.

It just beggars belief that the ones that not so long ago were championing equality for women and LGBT are now championing the ones who want to reverse all that equality.

Captain Obvious

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Are you for real?
FFS. Just because she is in Ireland does not mean she can do what she pleases.

Yes it does.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

If you genuinely believe that - despite the facts and evidence of life for such girls/women in other Western European countries - then I'm afraid you've lost all remaining credibility with that statement.

Your assessment of my credibility means diddly squat to me. The facts are that she is legally protected and can find much support should she decide to depart from her religious traditions.

_Kaiser_

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Your assessment of my credibility means diddly squat to me. The facts are that she is legally protected and can find much support should she decide to depart from her religious traditions.

Again, the reality of the situation and the demands of these religious "traditions" and its adherents make what you're suggesting to be almost impossible without significant and real risk and upheaval for the women involved.

That's like saying that there were plenty of supports for those abused by the Catholic Church in the bad old days - and yet there's STILL many Irish women who have yet to receive justice for their suffering under that regime.

This isn't modern-day "Catholic" in name only stuff we're talking about. Islam and its rules are taken a lot more seriously by its followers.

Omackeral

Odhinn says it's a burkha. Bubblypop says it's a niqab. Both think their argument nullifies the original point being incorrect yet one of them surely is wrong in their quest to correct someone else via deflection. Who's it gonna be?!

Captain Obvious

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Again, the reality of the situation and the demands of these religious "traditions" and its adherents make what you're suggesting to be almost impossible without significant and real risk and upheaval for the women involved.

That's like saying that there were plenty of supports for those abused by the Catholic Church in the bad old days - and yet there's STILL many Irish women who have yet to receive justice for their suffering under that regime.

This isn't modern-day "Catholic" in name only stuff we're talking about. Islam and its rules are taken a lot more seriously by its followers.

The difference is that the Catholic issues were ingrained everywhere from out Constitution through our government and into our public services. Islam does not have that kind of hold on the country.

2 Scoops

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Islam does not have that kind of hold on the country.

Not yet anyway, let's keep it that way.

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yes it does.

Your assessment of my credibility means diddly squat to me. The facts are that she is legally protected and can find much support should she decide to depart from her religious traditions.

Jesus H. Christ, this is actually frightening.

A child can have recourse to all the legal protection she wants after she has been smacked about or even worse endured some horrific "honour" punishment. What state protection has she before she decides to shed her hijab? How will the state stand beside her when she tells her father she doesnt want to wear hijab? What protection has she if her family decide to send her off to be a nice bride in some backward hole of a country?

As a decrier of the shameful Catholic/State failings in the past, i cant see how you can remain so blind to the issues here.

Or is it so important that you would sacrifice a young girls simple wishes to not have to cover her arms and hair on the altar of self righteous virtue signalling or Islamic fetishizing?

I'm actually embarrassed for you.

_Kaiser_

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The difference is that the Catholic issues were ingrained everywhere from out Constitution through our government and into our public services. Islam does not have that kind of hold on the country.

No it doesn't, thankfully... nor should it ever get to a point where it does IMO

But it DOES have that level of control among its followers... again, you only need to look as far as parts of the UK to see the results that has.

The bottom line is this (as I've said before on this topic).... you are free to believe what you want, but when you come to our country you live by our rules/laws and adapt to our social and cultural norms (not vice versa). If that doesn't suit you, then maybe you're better going back to where you came from, or trying one of the many Islamic countries that will be far more to your liking.

10000maniacs

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No it doesn't, thankfully... nor should it ever get to a point where it does IMO

But it DOES have that level of control among its followers... again, you only need to look as far as parts of the UK to see the results that has.

The bottom line is this (as I've said before on this topic).... you are free to believe what you want, but when you come to our country you live by our rules/laws and adapt to our social and cultural norms (not vice versa). If that doesn't suit you, then maybe you're better going back to where you came from, or trying one of the many Islamic countries that will be far more to your liking.

What are the welfare and housing benefits like in your average Islamic country?

gw80

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yes it does.





Your assessment of my credibility means diddly squat to me. The facts are that she is legally protected and can find much support should she decide to depart from her religious traditions.

You have to be taking the mick,
Do you honestly believe that the state would want to go anywhere near a situation where they would have to go against an islamic tradition for fear of being called racist. It would get passed around from department to department like a piece of **** on a stick.
Actually I would love to see it happen, and for someone to go full public with it, imagine the squirming,

Captain Obvious

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Jesus H. Christ, this is actually frightening.

A child can have recourse to all the legal protection she wants after she has been smacked about or even worse endured some horrific "honour" punishment. What state protection has she before she decides to shed her hijab? How will the state stand beside her when she tells her father she doesnt want to wear hijab? What protection has she if her family decide to send her off to be a nice bride in some backward hole of a country?

As a decrier of the shameful Catholic/State failings in the past, i cant see how you can remain so blind to the issues here.

She has the same constitutional protections and legal protections as every other child in Ireland. If he smack her around he can be prosecuted. If someone tries to send her away she can be taken from them and they can be prosecuted. If she wants to wear different clothes she'll have to rebel like every other child who wants to wear something their parents don't like and if that parent resorts to child abuse to enforce their dress code then we go back around to prosecuting them.


What point are you trying to make exactly? Are you saying we should legally enforce restrictions on how parents dress their children? Do you think Muslims should have some additional restrictions in regard to raising their children over everyone else?

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

JOr is it so important that you would sacrifice a young girls simple wishes to not have to cover her arms and hair on the altar of self righteous virtue signalling or Islamic fetishizing?

That's terrible. You could surely have fit more buzzwords in there.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

JI'm actually embarrassed for you.

I didn't think your kind were capable of any kind of shame.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No it doesn't, thankfully... nor should it ever get to a point where it does IMO

But it DOES have that level of control among its followers... again, you only need to look as far as parts of the UK to see the results that has.

The bottom line is this (as I've said before on this topic).... you are free to believe what you want, but when you come to our country you live by our rules/laws and adapt to our social and cultural norms (not vice versa). If that doesn't suit you, then maybe you're better going back to where you came from, or trying one of the many Islamic countries that will be far more to your liking.

The problem with that is our cultural and societal norms are ever changing. That's why we have things like religious freedom and freedom of expression. And, like it or not, parents are given a certain amount of freedom in how they raise their child. And when that child reaches maturity they are given the freedom to proceed with their life in whatever way they feel. I ask you the same question I asked above. What exactly are you suggesting should be done in the hypothetical case of the 10 year old girl highlighted above?

In the "Right on tyranny" thread with that comedian's rant on "Oppression Obsession", Captain Obvious defended Laura Ingalls Wilder (Little House on the Prairie) being removed from a writing award by saying "Yes they do but what's wrong with judging things based on existing cultural norms?"

If only he could manage a way to judge a 10-year-old being forced to wear a hijab against existing cultural norms. But no, that would never happen would it. Islam is protected whereas western culture isn't.


"She can do what she wants when she's 18.".. Possibly the most idealistic bullshlt ever spouted on this website.

Brae100

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Your assessment of my credibility means diddly squat to me. The facts are that she is legally protected and can find much support should she decide to depart from her religious traditions.

How did that legal protection work out for the 6000 girls who had FGM performed on them?

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"She can do what she wants when she's 18.".. Possibly the most idealistic bullshlt ever spouted on this website.

Ah AbG, you missed a trick:

Captain Obvious wrote: »

she will be free to do as she pleases when she hits 18, probably sooner than that.

It's before she's 18!!
Jesus wept.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

In the "Right on tyranny" thread with that comedian's rant on "Oppression Obsession", Captain Obvious defended Laura Ingalls Wilder (Little House on the Prairie) being removed from a writing award by saying "Yes they do but what's wrong with judging things based on existing cultural norms?"

If only he could manage a way to judge a 10-year-old being forced to wear a hijab against existing cultural norms. But no, that would never happen would it. Islam is protected whereas western culture isn't.


"She can do what she wants when she's 18.".. Possibly the most idealistic bullshlt ever spouted on this website.

You have me mistaken for someone else. I would absolutely judge someone for putting a 10 year old in a hijab.

Brae100 wrote: »

How did that legal protection work out for the 6000 girls who had FGM performed on them?

About the same as it did for any other victim of crime. What point are you trying to make? We all agree FGM is bad. We all agree child marriage is bad. We all agree forcing a child to wear an oppressive religious garment is bad. Your issue with me is that I think she's much better off in Ireland than stuck back in Palestine? Or that I think she has a much greater chance of being free of religious doctrine growing up in Ireland?

Brae100

Captain Obvious wrote: »

About the same as it did for any other victim of crime. What point are you trying to make? We all agree FGM is bad. We all agree child marriage is bad. We all agree forcing a child to wear an oppressive religious garment is bad. Your issue with me is that I think she's much better off in Ireland than stuck back in Palestine? Or that I think she has a much greater chance of being free of religious doctrine growing up in Ireland?

I'll reply to this properly later. I'm about to watch the football where the goalposts stay in the same place.

Captain Obvious

Brae100 wrote: »

I'll reply to this properly later. I'm about to watch the football where the goalposts stay in the same place.

No point blaming the goal posts when you can't kick straight.

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

... I would absolutely judge someone for putting a 10 year old in a hijab.

...We all agree FGM is bad. We all agree child marriage is bad. We all agree forcing a child to wear an oppressive religious garment is bad. Your issue with me is that I think she's much better off in Ireland than stuck back in Palestine? Or that I think she has a much greater chance of being free of religious doctrine growing up in Ireland?

Wait what?
*breathes on and cleans spectacles

Captain Obvious

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Wait what?
*breathes on and cleans spectacles

I don't like religion at all. I've made that clear quite a few times in a number of threads.

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I don't like religion at all. I've made that clear quite a few times in a number of threads.

The lady doth profess too much!!

So if forcing a child to wear a religious garment is bad, why are you defending it?

Brae100

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

The lady doth profess too much!!

So if forcing a child to wear a religious garment is bad, why are you defending it?

It's because the right are anti-Islam, therefore the virtue signallers have to oppose that view, regardless of whether it is legitimate criticism or not. To back down in the slightest on any aspect equates to them agreeing with Tommy Robinson. They'd rather see FGM, forced burkha, etc. than let that happen.

2 Scoops

If it isn't obvious by now, ideologue's do exist. The poster who said, and I quote ; "Trump is kidnapping children" is the same poster who advocates for a stone age ideology that suppresses basic human rights.

It's the great conundrum of their time and must be so morally confusing if they can get past the cognitive dissonance. How do I appear so morally astute fighting for human rights while at the same defend an oppressive culture which directly contradicts the beliefs I thought I had.

Choose one, you can't have both.

Captain Obvious

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

The lady doth profess too much!!

So if forcing a child to wear a religious garment is bad, why are you defending it?

What do you think I am defending exactly? A parent can dress a child however they want. That's just a fact. And if they try use force to do that they can be prosecuted. That's also a fact. Parents are granted certain freedoms in how they raise their children. Deciding on what clothes they buy them is one of those freedoms. I don't have to like the clothes the parent chooses for a child but what is it you suggest? Ban items of clothing you don't agree with?

Captain Obvious

2 Scoops wrote: »

If it isn't obvious by now, ideologue's do exist. The poster who said, and I quote ; "Trump is kidnapping children" is the same poster who advocates for a stone age ideology that suppresses basic human rights.

Except I haven't done that.

Wailin

Nope

WinnyThePoo

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Except I haven't done that.

Your dealing with people, who are convinced the EU and our governments objective is to bring about Islamic dominance all over Europe, why?.. Something, something liberals...

Captain Obvious

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your dealing with people, who are convinced the EU and our governments objective is to bring about Islamic dominance all over Europe, why?.. Something, something liberals...

I'm dealing with people who think that if you are not completely against Islam in every way you are completely for it in every way. There's no middleground or complexity to the issue and if you aren't completely on board with them you are the enemy.

SnakePlissken

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your dealing with people, who are convinced the EU and our governments objective is to bring about Islamic dominance all over Europe, why?.. Something, something liberals...

Your only contribution to these threads on Islam is these pathethic snipes at those you disagree with, not once have you ever added any maturity, intelligence, wit or insight to these threads. It baffles me to think you actually believe these childish jibs put you on the correct side of the argument.

WinnyThePoo

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Your only contribution to these threads on Islam is these pathethic snipes at those you disagree with, not once have you ever added any maturity, intelligence, wit or insight to these threads. It baffles me to think you actually believe these childish jibs put you on the correct side of the argument.

What I've read on these threads is pure out and out bigotry. Thanks for noticing me though, I'm flattered.

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What do you think I am defending exactly? A parent can dress a child however they want. That's just a fact. And if they try use force to do that they can be prosecuted. That's also a fact. Parents are granted certain freedoms in how they raise their children. Deciding on what clothes they buy them is one of those freedoms. I don't have to like the clothes the parent chooses for a child but what is it you suggest? Ban items of clothing you don't agree with?

Sure a hijab is a bit like a Liverpool jersey...

I dont give a fcuk what way people dress. I expect others to not give a fcuk what way i dress. I've an issue though with an ideology that demands girls cover themselves to vary degree irrespective of what the girls want, based on b011ox. And other aspects of that ideology.

I'm not aware of any honour beatings for wearing the wrong trousers or t-shirt.

You seem to think these girls now that they are safe in Ireland can shrug off their hijab and dress however they wish - but sure wouldnt it be worse for them in Kipistan
Bless

2 Scoops

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your dealing with people, who are convinced the EU and our governments objective is to bring about Islamic dominance all over Europe, why?.. Something, something liberals...

Even if that was true, I'd prefer that over a conversation with people like you who'll lie over and over just to suit your viewpoint and snidely thank posts thinking it proves you right. I'm still waiting for your proof that chatham house are a "right wing" outfit.

SnakePlissken

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What I've read on these threads is pure out and out bigotry.

Oh I completely agree.



bigotry

ˈbɪɡətri/

noun

intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Roger Hassenforder

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your dealing with people, who are convinced the EU and our governments objective is to bring about Islamic dominance all over Europe, why?.. Something, something liberals...

Pure unadulterated bu115hit.
Gold plated bu115h1t actually.


Something something Trump something Alt-right bu115hit