Should Dublin ban Burqas and Hijabs?

Giraffe Box

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Of course they should be banned, it's ridiculous to have someone going around the place like they are a walking postbox.

'Galwayguy35', have you met Boris Johnson, I think you'd get on very well.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/06/boris-johnsons-burqa-remarks-fan-flames-of-islamophobia-says-mp

Galwayguy35

Giraffe Box wrote: »

'Galwayguy35', have you met Boris Johnson, I think you'd get on very well.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/06/boris-johnsons-burqa-remarks-fan-flames-of-islamophobia-says-mp

No Mr Giraffe I don't think we would.

Giraffe Box

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

No Mr Giraffe I don't think we would.

Very similar views though.

Danzy

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Very similar views though.

Similar in an opposite kind of way though.

dennispenn

Dannyriver wrote: »

Oh right I thought you were saying it. Gabrielle has been found out to be a Charlatan but lets ignore that shall we.

She had to flee her country because,thats right.... You guessed it..... The peaceful religions guys hunted her from it. Yet you still defend them. It's a sick world we share.

ToddyDoody

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Of course they should be banned, it's ridiculous to have someone going around the place like they are a walking postbox.

You know you're always welcome here in after hours

Dannyriver

dennispenn wrote: »

She had to flee her country because,thats right.... You guessed it..... The peaceful religions guys hunted her from it. Yet you still defend them. It's a sick world we share.

Google the Lebanese civil war and then google what her detractors say about her account of what happened ... If you re gonna spent your life on info wars and Paul Joseph watson s twitter you re going to always be a tad ill informed.

Danzy

thebull85 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNOZS9fcWJo

Its prayer time, so f**k everyone else on the road.

Corduffistan

Stuff like that is going out of the way to whizz down on people.

Saw the same in the Netherlands, blocking the road when there was no need, calculates insult.

Grayson

Danzy wrote: »

There are other polls, by reputable and State wide polling companies in Britain that give even worse percentages on those issues.

28% of young Muslims in Britain say it is justifiable to kill for the faith, same % roughly, said the murder of the Charlie Hebdo activists was justified.

In France there is about 30% as well with those views.

This is not a small problem.

On average the Islamic community is more conservative than the host community, but many are to the right of the inquisition.

Armed extremism is small but extremist views are not small.

On those %s it will not take much for armed extremism to become a serious issue in large parts of England.

That is another issue though, it does not take from the Islamic community have a severe regressive belief system.

If a third of Catholics had views that were at home in Franco's Spain it would be a major story and rightly so, when near the same of the Islamic community in much of Europe have views that are of many magnitudes more extreme, it is a down played.

They only time a modern Left wing politician will shake hands with a person who calls for Jews and gays to be killed, who advocates wife beating, who will sit in gender segregated meetings is if that person is from the Islamic Community.

The modern Left looks at the skin, many of us look at the culture and beliefs behind this.

Got any links for those studies? because I'm used to people posting studies and not understanding what the results mean or misinterpreting them. So I'd like to see the results for those studies.

Sassygirl1999

Skinhead Kane wrote: »

Greetings guys and girls,

I have been thinking about this topic for quite some time now and have yet to make a real judgement on what truly would be a correct answer. If were to go to a country populated by the Muslim community we would be asked to cover up and follow their religious procedure.

Therefore in Britain and Ireland I believe we are within our rights to ban something that isolates woman and was made by men to oppress them. If I were to show my hair/head in their countries, I would be seen as obscene.

Recently came back from a trip and had some female friends been told by locals to cover their arms and legs as well as hair before entering out of the city centre areas. It was a very aggressive approach to and almost demanded 'or we leave the country' type of attitude. Now not using this as a reason or motive to make this topic, but it has however got me thinking.

If I could vote on it, I would ban burqas and possibly hijab.


What's your take on this guys?

Regards,

Sk

niqabs are fine, can the rest

PlaneSpeeking

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

niqabs are fine, can the rest

Do you mean hijab that covers only the hair ?

Mist niqabs cover the eyes also with only enough space to see.

Agreed if so, no issue with a headscarf - the grandmother sure she wore one to Mass every time, not a big deal.

Had she gone out looking like a dalek put away for the Winter - that would be a big deal.

Captain Obvious

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Of course they should be banned, it's ridiculous to have someone going around the place like they are a walking postbox.

How would you enforce it?

PlaneSpeeking

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How would you enforce it?

Not allowed to enter shops, banks, etc

Anyone found doing so is given a fixed penalty ticket, like littering.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How would you enforce it?

on the spot fines?

Captain Obvious

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Not allowed to enter shops, banks, etc

Anyone found doing so is given a fixed penalty ticket, like littering.

First of all, the government can't ban people from wearing an item of clothing in a private business. And if a business banned someone based on their clothing they'd probably face a difficult law suit.


Second, when the person you have fined takes their case to court for a breach of Article 44.2 how would you defend your law?

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

on the spot fines?

How would you know who you are fining?

DChancer

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Not allowed to enter shops, banks, etc

Anyone found doing so is given a fixed penalty ticket, like littering.

Except you cant do that as the Equality Act prohibits discrimination based on Religion. So shops Banks cannot ban Muslim women from them because of their attire.

PlaneSpeeking

Captain Obvious wrote: »

First of all, the government can't ban people from wearing an item of clothing in a private business. And if a business banned someone based on their clothing they'd probably face a difficult law suit.


Second, when the person you have fined takes their case to court for a breach of Article 44.2 how would you defend your law?

This again, Jesus.

It is perfectly legal to ask anyone to remove a face covering, hoodie, baseball cap, balaclava, bike helmet - etc when going into a post office, bank or shop.

You seem to constantly be of the mind that Article 44.2 somehow precludes a ban ? The full face covering the burka and niqab is not demanded anywhere in the Quran and so as a cultural and not a religious garment, there's no religious aspect.

Besides - all 44.2 states is "2 - The State guarantees not to endow any religion." That's it.

If women wearing are happy to be told what to wear by their ignorant, insecure men then fine - none of my business. But don't expect to walk round wearing it when a kid has to take off his hoodie in the same place.

PlaneSpeeking

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How would you know who you are fining?

Here's an idea - ASK THEM THEIR NAME!

Works perfectly well on the LUAS.

PlaneSpeeking

DChancer wrote: »

Except you cant do that as the Equality Act prohibits discrimination based on Religion. So shops Banks cannot ban Muslim women from them because of their attire.

Sadly - for you - you're wrong.

That style dress is not demanded as a religious right - as the Sikh turban etc (which is why there are driving exceptions for those who must wear it).

It is purely cultural and not covered by the Equal Status Act (the correct name btw).

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

First of all, the government can't ban people from wearing an item of clothing in a private business. And if a business banned someone based on their clothing they'd probably face a difficult law suit.

I keep coming back to this, and posters keep posting up that the government can't ban such. But they can. We already have decency laws regarding clothing, and we also have laws against the incitement of hatred/violence which relate to symbols which can be represented by clothing.

Second, when the person you have fined takes their case to court for a breach of Article 44.2 how would you defend your law?

You ban all religious expression outside of the Church/Mosque/etc, and align the other laws to compensate for that change. You still don't discriminate against people based on their religion, since all religions are affected... People would still have the right to practice their faith (along with the associated behaviors) in their homes or the place of worship, but not external of those places.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

I keep coming back to this, and posters keep posting up that the government can't ban such. But they can. We already have decency laws regarding clothing, and we also have laws against the incitement of hatred/violence which relate to symbols which can be represented by clothing.



You ban all religious expression outside of the Church/Mosque/etc, and align the other laws to compensate for that change. You still don't discriminate against people based on their religion, since all religions are affected... People would still have the right to practice their faith (along with the associated behaviors) in their homes or the place of worship, but not external of those places.

Ah would you stop with the truth and logic!!

No place for that here lol!!!!

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How would you know who you are fining?

Pretty "obvious" considering what they're wearing.

DChancer

DChancer wrote: »

Except you cant do that as the Equality Act prohibits discrimination based on Religion. So shops Banks cannot ban Muslim women from them because of their attire.

Discrimination? If the law/ban is applied to everyone equally, where is the discrimination?

Captain Obvious

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

This again, Jesus.

It is perfectly legal to ask anyone to remove a face covering, hoodie, baseball cap, balaclava, bike helmet - etc when going into a post office, bank or shop.

You seem to constantly be of the mind that Article 44.2 somehow precludes a ban ? The full face covering the burka and niqab is not demanded anywhere in the Quran and so as a cultural and not a religious garment, there's no religious aspect.

Besides - all 44.2 states is "2 - The State guarantees not to endow any religion." That's it.

If women wearing are happy to be told what to wear by their ignorant, insecure men then fine - none of my business. But don't expect to walk round wearing it when a kid has to take off his hoodie in the same place.

Constantly? I just posted on this thread for the first time.


44.2 states that "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen."


Not sure why you skipped that part.


Your argument seems to be that those particular items of clothing are not religious because they aren't mentioned in the Quaran. I don't think that would really hold up. There is nothing in the Bible requiring a priest to wear a collar or a bishop to wear his garments but they are religious garments none the less. They are worn for the purpose of practicing the religion. I don't think your argument would hold up in court. And that's before you get into any freedom of expression arguments.


Out of curiosity, what benefit do you think banning these items of clothing and fining and locking up women who wear them would bring to the country?

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty "obvious" considering what they're wearing.

Would you demand they remove their clothing and produce ID?

Sassygirl1999

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Would you demand they remove their clothing and produce ID?

niqab only

DChancer

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Sadly - for you - you're wrong.

That style dress is not demanded as a religious right - as the Sikh turban etc (which is why there are driving exceptions for those who must wear it).

It is purely cultural and not covered by the Equal Status Act (the correct name btw).

Wrong!

But go ahead, try discriminating on basis of religion and see how much it costs you.

PlaneSpeeking

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Constantly? I just posted on this thread for the first time.


44.2 states that "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen."


Not sure why you skipped that part.


Your argument seems to be that those particular items of clothing are not religious because they aren't mentioned in the Quaran. I don't think that would really hold up. There is nothing in the Bible requiring a priest to wear a collar or a bishop to wear his garments but they are religious garments none the less. They are worn for the purpose of practicing the religion. I don't think your argument would hold up in court. And that's before you get into any freedom of expression arguments.


Out of curiosity, what benefit do you think banning these items of clothing and fining and locking up women who wear them would bring to the country?

A sense that you can't just walk in to a country and act how you want - when the country you've come from lock people up for showing their shoulders off.

Fairness - we say what we can do, you say what you can do.

Security - you have zero clue who or what is under there.

Loads more but you've form and I imagine the next thing is to call me racist, so...

PlaneSpeeking

DChancer wrote: »

Wrong!

But go ahead, try discriminating on basis of religion and see how much it costs you.

You might want to get a grown up to help with the reading there dear.

This is not a religious right demanded, therefore not covered by religious discrimination clauses.

We're not closing down the South Circular mosque ffs - just levelling the playing field and doing what their countries always do, tell visitors what they can and can't do or wear.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Discrimination? If the law/ban is applied to everyone equally, where is the discrimination?

That's not equality. You could say that the law would be applied to everyone equally but it's not.

let's say you outlaw Dublin jerseys. If someone from Kerry wears one, they would be breaking the law. The thing is someone from Kerry wouldn't be wearing one, just someone from Dublin. So although the law is applies equally it does affect someone from Dublin a lot more.

Remember a few years ago they tried to ban burkinis on beaches in France. they said that beaches were secular areas and you shouldn't have religious clothing on them. People pointed out that nuns were allowed on beaches. So then in one area they added nuns and priests to the legislation. Technically that's equality since it affects everyone, but it's still targeting people based on religious belief which is wrong. can you imagine banning nuns from wearing a habit in certain places? It's bad enough banning them from places like government buildings but to ban them from public spaces?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/burkini-ban-why-is-france-arresting-muslim-women-for-wearing-full-body-swimwear-and-why-are-people-a7207971.html

A woman was forced to remove clothing whilst surrounded by officers.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/burkini-swimwear-ban-france-nice-armed-police-hijab-muslim-a7206776.html

On Tuesday a 34-year-old mother of two, whose family have been French citizens for at least three generations, told French news agency AFP she had been fined on the beach in Cannes, 18 miles from Nice, for wearing leggings, a top and a headscarf.

The former air-hostess from Toulouse was issued a ticket saying she was not wearing “an outfit respecting good morals and secularism”.

“I was sitting on a beach with my family,” she said. “I wasn't even planning to swim, just to dip my feet.”

After initially refusing to undress in front of the officers who were reportedly holding tear gas canisters, she was issued with an on-the-spot fine while other people on the beach allegedly shouted insults, telling her to “go home”.

Imagine that, being given a ticket for not respecting good morals and secularism? That's batsh1t crazy.

Captain Obvious

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

A sense that you can't just walk in to a country and act how you want - when the country you've come from lock people up for showing their shoulders off.

Fairness - we say what we can do, you say what you can do.

Security - you have zero clue who or what is under there.

Loads more but you've form and I imagine the next thing is to call me racist, so...

So you think we should model our laws on the laws from those countries? You want a country where women are told what they can and can't wear and are prosecuted for not dressing like they are supposed to. What exactly separates you from Islamists in that regard?



That's not what fairness means.


What business is it of yours who is under there as long as they are going about their business? If a Garda or security guard thinks they are acting suspiciously then they have the option of simply talking to them.


Don't think there's any need for that. Not like you hide it.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

I keep coming back to this, and posters keep posting up that the government can't ban such. But they can. We already have decency laws regarding clothing, and we also have laws against the incitement of hatred/violence which relate to symbols which can be represented by clothing.

Article 44.2 specifically allows for exceptions in regards to morality and public order. Hard to see how banning a religious head dress would fall under that.

Deleted User wrote: »

You ban all religious expression outside of the Church/Mosque/etc, and align the other laws to compensate for that change. You still don't discriminate against people based on their religion, since all religions are affected... People would still have the right to practice their faith (along with the associated behaviors) in their homes or the place of worship, but not external of those places.

That's not how discrimination laws work. You are still discriminating against someone based on their religion. You just also happen to be doing the same to others of different religions.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Would you demand they remove their clothing and produce ID?

On the spot fines. It's a really simple point. You don't need to complicate it. If someone continues wearing the article of clothing, the fines increase. Generally people respond to a shrinking bank balance.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

44.2 states that "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen."

And if the religious garment is determined to be a threat to public order due to the negative influence it has on others?

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

And if the religious garment is determined to be a threat to public order due to the negative influence it has on others?

How does it? If you mean others might be offended, well that's they're problem and that's something that they have to deal with.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

That's not equality. You could say that the law would be applied to everyone equally but it's not.

Sure it is. I've spoken about banning the public expression of all religions equally.

I've taken the stand consistently from a few pages back to ban all such expression, not simply the Burqas or hijabs. If you want to simply argue about those articles alone... It's not where i stand... because it's too little too late.

Duck Soup

Yeah sure, in a country that for centuries had one religion discriminated against, let's, in the 21st century, single out a religion and curtail their rights. Makes sense.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

On the spot fines. It's a really simple point. You don't need to complicate it. If someone continues wearing the article of clothing, the fines increase. Generally people respond to a shrinking bank balance.

How do you think fines are enforced in Ireland when people don't pay them?

Deleted User wrote: »

And if the religious garment is determined to be a threat to public order due to the negative influence it has on others?

You don't punish a person because their existence is repugnant to others.

IBrows89

Has anyone ever been directly affected by anyone wearing a Burqa or a Hijab?

Has it damaged your health or lifestyle in any way in Ireland?

Why can't they wear what they want? Would anyone have an issue if an Irish woman of any other religion wanted to cover up?

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Article 44.2 specifically allows for exceptions in regards to morality and public order. Hard to see how banning a religious head dress would fall under that.

And when it incites people to hatred and violence? We are seeing a rapidly growing number of people in Europe who are responding to Islamic presence with anger.

[Yup. removed a followup question since I'm stepping out of this endless discussion]

That's not how discrimination laws work. You are still discriminating against someone based on their religion. You just also happen to be doing the same to others of different religions.

Okie dokie.

I'm not actually agreeing with you... I'm just tired circling this issue.

Ok. I'm done. Tired of repeating myself..

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure it is. I've spoken about banning the public expression of all religions equally.

I've taken the stand consistently from a few pages back to ban all such expression, not simply the Burqas or hijabs. If you want to simply argue about those articles alone... It's not where i stand... because it's too little too late.

Sorry, I missed that.

I don't like religion but i think it's a bit far to ban all religious paraphernalia from public. Banning habits on nuns, turbans in sikhs, headscarves on muslims, it's pretty drastic. I also think it would be impossible to remove all references from public life. Can mosques not have minarets? Do churches have to be nondescript.

Religion, whether I like it or not, is here. It's a part of peoples lives. And freedom of expression is a very important part of our society. We should limit any expressions, political or religious, which incites violence against people, but that's it.

PlaneSpeeking

Grayson wrote: »

Sorry, I missed that.

I don't like religion but i think it's a bit far to ban all religious paraphernalia from public. Banning habits on nuns, turbans in sikhs, headscarves on muslims, it's pretty drastic. I also think it would be impossible to remove all references from public life. Can mosques not have minarets? Do churches have to be nondescript.

Religion, whether I like it or not, is here. It's a part of peoples lives. And freedom of expression is a very important part of our society. We should limit any expressions, political or religious, which incites violence against people, but that's it.

But we have a situation now where there is a disparity - I've been asked to remove a cross in work so as "not to offend" but have to see parents coming in wearing full burka, including the "net covering" over the eyes.

We should either operate like France and all is banned, or all is allowed (within reason).

Incidentally, students here from the UAE and Kuwait were allowed to miss classes last year to celebrate their national days, handing out sweets and giving out cards containing "prayers" (could have literally been anything) and messages from their founders.

No one else was allowed to, and recently an Orthodox Jewish student wanted to be allowed to leave before dark on the Fridays in winter - she was told no.

The unfairness and differing treatment is what most have an issue with.

Captain Obvious

IBrows89 wrote: »

Has anyone ever been directly affected by anyone wearing a Burqa or a Hijab?

Has it damaged your health or lifestyle in any way in Ireland?

Why can't they wear what they want? Would anyone have an issue if an Irish woman of any other religion wanted to cover up?

klaz is fearful that someone will get so enraged by seeing a woman in a particular item of clothing they will become violent and, in order to prevent that, women should be banned from wearing that item of clothing for the greater good and so as not to upset these violent psychopaths.

Deleted User wrote: »

And when it incites people to hatred and violence? We are seeing a rapidly growing number of people in Europe who are responding to Islamic presence with anger.

Then you punish those people for being violent and protect the freedoms of the innocent person. You're victim blaming is shameful.

Captain Obvious

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

But we have a situation now where there is a disparity - I've been asked to remove a cross in work so as "not to offend" but have to see parents coming in wearing full burka, including the "net covering" over the eyes.

So sue your work.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

But we have a situation now where there is a disparity - I've been asked to remove a cross in work so as "not to offend" but have to see parents coming in wearing full burka, including the "net covering" over the eyes.
.

I am assuming you are a teacher?
You work for the school, you are an employee, I don't know what kind of school you work for, but that is their right.
You hardly expect a school to dictate to parents what they should & shouldn't wear.

SnakePlissken

I fully respect a Muslim woman's right to wear absolutely what they like, I'd be called fascist if I were to dictate what one can and cannot wear... which is exactly why I'll be rocking a T-shirt depicting a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad around Clonskeagh today.

Nothing offensive, just a cartoon depiction of a man who died centuries ago. As Muslims are very vocal about their rights to wear as they wish, I can't see anyone taking offense with me being afforded the same courtesy... oh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

PlaneSpeeking

bubblypop wrote: »

I am assuming you are a teacher?
You work for the school, you are an employee, I don't know what kind of school you work for, but that is their right.
You hardly expect a school to dictate to parents what they should & shouldn't wear.

No, I work in a University.

PlaneSpeeking

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I fully respect a Muslim woman's right to wear absolutely what they like, I'd be called fascist if I were to dictate what one can and cannot wear... which is exactly why I'll be rocking a T-shirt depicting a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad around Clonskeagh today.

Nothing offensive, just a cartoon depiction of a man who died centuries ago. As Muslims are very vocal about their rights to wear as they wish, I can't see anyone taking offense with me being afforded the same courtesy... oh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

Yep - kings of the double standards they are so.

Captain Obvious

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I fully respect a Muslim woman's right to wear absolutely what they like, I'd be called fascist if I were to dictate what one can and cannot wear... which is exactly why I'll be rocking a T-shirt depicting a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad around Clonskeagh today.

Nothing offensive, just a cartoon depiction of a man who died centuries ago. As Muslims are very vocal about their rights to wear as they wish, I can't see anyone taking offense with me being afforded the same courtesy... oh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

Fill your boots Snake. You may fall foul of that blasphemy law though.