Should Dublin ban Burqas and Hijabs?

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

No, I work in a University.

OK, same applies though, your employer has the right to dictate what you can & cannot wear.
They don't have that right over people that do not work there.
I don't see any issue with that? Seems normal enough

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

Just walk round with a t-shirt showing the names of those murdered by the morons and "killed for a f**king CARTOON" on it.

PlaneSpeeking

bubblypop wrote: »

OK, same applies though, your employer has the right to dictate what you can & cannot wear.
They don't have that right over people that do not work there.
I don't see any issue with that? Seems normal enough

You don't see an issue where people in their own country have to hide their beliefs lest they cause "offence" and yet we welcome people into the place who are allowed to display theirs ?

You honestly see no double standard there ?

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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.

Ahh... violent psychopaths. Way to go making whatever I suggested unlikely and unreasonable.

And that's why I bowed out of this debate. You cannot have a reasonable discussion with certain posters because they seek to deal with the extremes and at the same time ignore the changes that are sweeping Europe. Even when I state that I'm looking at problems that will occur in the future (within a decade or so), they persist in pushing everything into the short-term. To match their own outlook. Box everything down to the most simplistic and deny the need for anything to change. lalalala I can't hear you. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

And of course, when things go to ****, you can take comfort in knowing that you are a victim and therefore not, in the slightest way, responsible for what happens. Those who argued against you are responsible because they didn't use the right arguments to convince you. At least, you championed a fair and just society for everyone, and that matters! Yay!

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

Ahh yes, because if someone wears a SS uniform at a Jewish wedding, it's obviously the fault of the Jewish people that they're offended and might turn to violence.

Thread un-followed. Typical nonsense that happens in these threads after a bit.

(Oh! and if you do want to know what I thought, you could go back a few pages, not many, and read some of my longer posts. Not need to have a poster reinterpret them for you.]

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You don't see an issue where people in their own country have to hide their beliefs lest they cause "offence" and yet we welcome people into the place who are allowed to display theirs ?

You honestly see no double standard there ?

Bit you don't have to hide your beliefs in your own country, which is great! You can wear any religious emblem you want.
Your employer, however, is entitled to forbid employees to wear whatever they want at work.

There are a lot of rules when we go to work, bit fortunately for you, you can do what you want outside of working hours.

There's absolutely no double standards.

PlaneSpeeking

bubblypop wrote: »

Bit you don't have to hide your beliefs in your own country, which is great! You can wear any religious emblem you want.
Your employer, however, is entitled to forbid employees to wear whatever they want at work.

There are a lot of rules when we go to work, bit fortunately for you, you can do what you want outside of working hours.

There's absolutely no double standards.

I know you dearly want to believe that but there clearly is.

One branch of religion is forbidden to display symbols - another is not.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah yes, because if someone wears a SS uniform at a Jewish wedding, it's obviously the fault of the Jewish people that they're offended and might turn to violence.
.]

Compares a Muslim woman wearing a burka to a SS officer.................

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I know you dearly want to believe that but there clearly is.

One branch of religion is forbidden to display symbols - another is not.

Who forbids you from displaying symbols of your religion? Your employer.
You do realise your employer is not in charge of people that do not work for it?

Grayson

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

There is a difference. One isn't designed to offend you. Any offence you may feel is a by product. Whereas the Mohammad one is designed to offend muslims. It's effectively trolling through your clothes.

Neither should be banned in my opinion. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't think someone wearing that shirt is an asshole.

PlaneSpeeking

bubblypop wrote: »

Compares a Muslim woman wearing a burka to a SS officer.................

I'd show a similar lack of trust to both.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh... violent psychopaths. Way to go making whatever I suggested unlikely and unreasonable.

Someone who attacks another person because of their clothes is very likely a violent psychopath.

Deleted User wrote: »

And that's why I bowed out of this debate. You cannot have a reasonable discussion with certain posters because they seek to deal with the extremes and at the same time ignore the changes that are sweeping Europe. Even when I state that I'm looking at problems that will occur in the future (within a decade or so), they persist in pushing everything into the short-term. To match their own outlook. Box everything down to the most simplistic and deny the need for anything to change. lalalala I can't hear you. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.



And of course, when things go to ****, you can take comfort in knowing that you are a victim and therefore not, in the slightest way, responsible for what happens. Those who argued against you are responsible because they didn't use the right arguments to convince you. At least, you championed a fair and just society for everyone, and that matters! Yay!

Well no, you haven't bowed out because you are still prattling on and soapboxing about the invasion of Europe. Terrified you might have to interact with someone different to you.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh yes, because if someone wears a SS uniform at a Jewish wedding, it's obviously the fault of the Jewish people that they're offended and might turn to violence.

Now you are comparing a religious headdress to a SS uniform. You are equating religion with politics. Do you even know the difference? Can you really not see the difference between a woman being attacked in the street for wearing a headdress and a man being attacked for going to a Jewish event in an SS uniform? While the attackers in both cases would be breaking the law, the victim in the first case would have done nothing wrong whereas Adolf would also have broken the law.

Giraffe Box

bubblypop wrote: »

Compares a Muslim woman wearing a burka to a SS officer.................

I thought that was very silly myself.

Odhinn

Giraffe Box wrote: »

I thought that was very silly myself.

Aye. Theres no way a burkha wearer would have boots as nice as the SS lads.

Grayson

Odhinn wrote: »

Aye. Theres no way a burkha wearer would have boots as nice as the SS lads.

And Hugo Boss never designed Burkas.

K.Flyer

IBrows89 wrote: »

...
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?

But are they wearing Burqas and Niqabs because they want to, or are they wearing what their husbands or the law of their homeland insist that they wear? Because the Islamic Quran does Not say that they have to wear them!

Given that there was a time, in even the more restrictive of countries, that there was no requirements or cultural expectations to completely cover up until the powers that be (men) not all too long ago, introduced laws that enforced women to be covered up. Of course no such law for men!.
Now we see some women in these countries are kicking back as they see it as a form of oppressive discrimination and are taking to the streets to protest.
Unfortunately, just in the same way as some protested years ago, they are being arrested and locked up, for Not wearing them.
In my opinion, the Burqa and Niqab are symbols of oppression and descrimination imposed upon women by their men as a means to impose control over them.
And just like when women in the sixties started to empower themselves and burned their bras, I hope someday to see these muslim women, who are being opressed and controlled by these garments, taking them off and burning them as well.

PlaneSpeeking

K.Flyer wrote: »

But are they wearing Burqas and Niqabs because they want to, or are they wearing what their husbands or the law of their homeland insist that they wear? Because the Islamic Quran does Not say that they have to wear them!

Given that there was a time, in even the more restrictive of countries, that there was no requirements or cultural expectations to completely cover up until the powers that be (men) not all too long ago, introduced laws that enforced women to be covered up. Of course no such law for men!.
Now we see some women in these countries are kicking back as they see it as a form of oppressive discrimination and are taking to the streets to protest.
Unfortunately, just in the same way as some protested years ago, they are being arrested and locked up, for Not wearing them.
In my opinion, the Burqa and Niqab are symbols of oppression and descrimination imposed upon women by their men as a means to impose control over them.
And just like when women in the sixties started to empower themselves and burned their bras, I hope someday to see these muslim women, who are being opressed and controlled by these garments, taking them off and burning them as well.

+1

Google Iran in the early 70s and before.

Better than the rancid ****hole it became.

Taytoland

Grayson wrote: »

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

There is a difference. One isn't designed to offend you. Any offence you may feel is a by product. Whereas the Mohammad one is designed to offend muslims. It's effectively trolling through your clothes.

Neither should be banned in my opinion. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't think someone wearing that shirt is an asshole.

And it's attitudes like that which is why those cartoonists got murdered by Islamic lunatics who just couldn't accept that not everyone thinks Muhammad was a great person. Absolutely nothing wrong with taking the piss out of  religion or ridiculing it. Particularly Islam which is the most silly and barbaric out of all of them.

Grayson

Taytoland wrote: »

And it's attitudes like that which is why those cartoonists got murdered by Islamic lunatics who just couldn't accept that not everyone thinks Muhammad was a great person. Absolutely nothing wrong with taking the piss out of  religion or ridiculing it. Particularly Islam which is the most silly and barbaric out of all of them.

How exactly is my attitude responsible for the murder of journalists? ``Or is that just hyperbole?

I don't go around trolling people. It doesn't mean i don't engage in discussions with them. I'm just not a troll and don't go out to deliberately offend people. I'm not about to walk up to a christian with an anti christian tee either. Or walk up to a pro life stand with a tee that has a photo of an aborted foetus and says "it's not a person you fcuking idiots".

There's no need to be an asshole.

Odhinn

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

+1

Google Iran in the early 70s and before.

Better than the rancid ****hole it became.

Utter nonsense.

dennispenn

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?

Great. ..go to court, then you will see its not a religious garment. There is no religious law or otherwise requiring the person to wear it. If there was,men would be wearing them don't you think?

Dannyriver

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?

I think they re saying that it will stop people robbing banks, or post offices apparently there s been a spate of it.

cfuserkildare

Odhinn wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

Actually Odhinn,

No, Iran pre-1979 was a fairly common holiday destination, way more than Turkey is nowadays, then along came ayatollah khomeini and ousted the Shah.

dennispenn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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

Who is to say the image on the shirt is of the prophet muhammad, who could verify it? Nobody of course.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Well no, you haven't bowed out because you are still prattling on and soapboxing about the invasion of Europe. Terrified you might have to interact with someone different to you.

The fact that you wrote this clearly shows you haven't read my posts.

But no surprise there.

Now you are comparing a religious headdress to a SS uniform.

And examples don't work because you'll twist them out of context. I didn't compare a Muslim woman with the SS. I compared the use of clothing that can offend other people, and the stupidity of your blameless victim attitude.

Again, showing that you're incapable of engaging with what's written... and why it's pointless to discuss anything with you.

Meh.

Taytoland

Grayson wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

And it's attitudes like that which is why those cartoonists got murdered by Islamic lunatics who just couldn't accept that not everyone thinks Muhammad was a great person. Absolutely nothing wrong with taking the piss out of  religion or ridiculing it. Particularly Islam which is the most silly and barbaric out of all of them.

How exactly is my attitude responsible for the murder of journalists? ``Or is that just hyperbole?

I don't go around trolling people. It doesn't mean i don't engage in discussions with them. I'm just not a troll and don't go out to deliberately offend people. I'm not about to walk up to a christian with an anti christian tee either. Or walk up to a pro life stand with a tee that has a photo of an aborted foetus and says "it's not a person you fcuking idiots".  

There's no need to be an asshole.

The fact you think it's trolling is part of the problem. It's just a view point on a silly person in history and on a silly religion. It's not trolling, it's expressing a legitimate point of view.

IBrows89

dennispenn wrote: »

Great. ..go to court, then you will see its not a religious garment. There is no religious law or otherwise requiring the person to wear it. If there was,men would be wearing them don't you think?

Planespeaking, you have a rainbow flag as your profile picture yet you're on about giving the same respect to SS people as someone wearing a Burka. This is so hypocritical.

15 years ago people were saying the same things about the gay community holding hands or doing what they wanted in public.

I feel the same way as someone wearing a Burqa as I would about seeing a gay couple hold hands, absolutely nothing. It has nothing to do with me and more rights to them for being brave and standing up to hypocrits and people with prejudice.

Dannyriver

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Just walk round with a t-shirt showing the names of those murdered by the morons and "killed for a f**king CARTOON" on it.

Yep we can all agree those guys are radicalised morons, now you are showing finally a little bit of rational logic. Focus on the people involved in the atrocities not the innocent ones who people are deciding are guilty by association.

PlaneSpeeking

IBrows89 wrote: »

Planespeaking, you have a rainbow flag as your profile picture yet you're on about giving the same respect to SS people as someone wearing a Burka. This is so hypocritical.

15 years ago people were saying the same things about the gay community holding hands or doing what they wanted in public.

I feel the same way as someone wearing a Burqa as I would about seeing a gay couple hold hands, absolutely nothing. It has nothing to do with me and more rights to them for being brave and standing up to hypocrits and people with prejudice.

The people wearing the burka have abhorrent views on the gay community - hence the fact I view them with loathing and mistrust.

Captain Obvious

K.Flyer wrote: »

But are they wearing Burqas and Niqabs because they want to, or are they wearing what their husbands or the law of their homeland insist that they wear? Because the Islamic Quran does Not say that they have to wear them!

Given that there was a time, in even the more restrictive of countries, that there was no requirements or cultural expectations to completely cover up until the powers that be (men) not all too long ago, introduced laws that enforced women to be covered up. Of course no such law for men!.
Now we see some women in these countries are kicking back as they see it as a form of oppressive discrimination and are taking to the streets to protest.
Unfortunately, just in the same way as some protested years ago, they are being arrested and locked up, for Not wearing them.
In my opinion, the Burqa and Niqab are symbols of oppression and descrimination imposed upon women by their men as a means to impose control over them.
And just like when women in the sixties started to empower themselves and burned their bras, I hope someday to see these muslim women, who are being opressed and controlled by these garments, taking them off and burning them as well.

Many people would see those clothing items as oppressive. But passing a law to say women cannot wear them would be as oppressive as passing a law requiring them to wear them.

dennispenn wrote: »

Great. ..go to court, then you will see its not a religious garment. There is no religious law or otherwise requiring the person to wear it. If there was,men would be wearing them don't you think?

No.

Dannyriver wrote: »

I think they re saying that it will stop people robbing banks, or post offices apparently there s been a spate of it.

Yet none of them looking to ban balaclavas.

dennispenn wrote: »

Who is to say the image on the shirt is of the prophet muhammad, who could verify it? Nobody of course.

Snake said it. It's in his post.

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that you wrote this clearly shows you haven't read my posts.

But no surprise there.



And examples don't work because you'll twist them out of context. I didn't compare a Muslim woman with the SS. I compared the use of clothing that can offend other people, and the stupidity of your blameless victim attitude.

Again, showing that you're incapable of engaging with what's written... and why it's pointless to discuss anything with you.

Meh.

Back again? How many times have you quit and unfollowed the thread now? Are you holding out for a going away party? But to clarify, I didn't say you compared a muslim woman to the SS, I said you compared a religious headdress to an SS uniform. That is what you did. By using "blameless victim" comparison though you do seem to be equating both people in this post.

Dannyriver

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd show a similar lack of trust to both.

What an infantile way of looking at things. What exactly do you teach in this university?

IBrows89

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The people wearing the burka have abhorrent views on the gay community - hence the fact I view them with loathing and mistrust.

Fair enough, I can understand that.

But hate breeds more hate and it's an endless cycle.

Dannyriver

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Someone who attacks another person because of their clothes is very likely a violent psychopath.




Well no, you haven't bowed out because you are still prattling on and soapboxing about the invasion of Europe. Terrified you might have to interact with someone different to you.



Now you are comparing a religious headdress to a SS uniform. You are equating religion with politics. Do you even know the difference? Can you really not see the difference between a woman being attacked in the street for wearing a headdress and a man being attacked for going to a Jewish event in an SS uniform? While the attackers in both cases would be breaking the law, the victim in the first case would have done nothing wrong whereas Adolf would also have broken the law.

Terrified that he might have to interact with someone who has the wherewithal to shine a light on his bull**** rationalisation of prejudice.

Grayson

Taytoland wrote: »

The fact you think it's trolling is part of the problem. It's just a view point on a silly person in history and on a silly religion. It's not trolling, it's expressing a legitimate point of view.

It's possible to express that opinion without the drawing. The reason to draw it is to say a fcuk you to them.

And I can understand the desire to do that. The people who committed the attacks in Paris are scum and they took their beliefs to the extreme. I want to say fcuk you to them.

However if I work it into work the people who see it would be the decent honest muslims I work with. I might think their religion, like all religion, is silly, but I'm not about to rub it in their faces. The same goes for the average stranger on the street.

Taytoland

Grayson wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

The fact you think it's trolling is part of the problem. It's just a view point on a silly person in history and on a silly religion. It's not trolling, it's expressing a legitimate point of view.

It's possible to express that opinion without the drawing. The reason to draw it is to say a fcuk you to them.

And I can understand the desire to do that. The people who committed the attacks in Paris are scum and they took their beliefs to the extreme. I want to say fcuk you to them.

However if I work it into work the people who see it would be the decent honest muslims I work with. I might think their religion, like all religion, is silly, but I'm not about to rub it in their faces. The same goes for the average stranger on the street.

So you think people shouldn't mock Nazism or Communism with a drawing? Are some ideologies more equal than others? Mock away is what I say.

PlaneSpeeking

Grayson wrote: »

It's possible to express that opinion without the drawing. The reason to draw it is to say a fcuk you to them.

And I can understand the desire to do that. The people who committed the attacks in Paris are scum and they took their beliefs to the extreme. I want to say fcuk you to them.

However if I work it into work the people who see it would be the decent honest muslims I work with. I might think their religion, like all religion, is silly, but I'm not about to rub it in their faces. The same goes for the average stranger on the street.

Whilst that is a really good point, you're not dealing with rational people here.

I imagine if I asked the hundreds of Muslims coming around on Monday (and they could answer secretly) the number saying they supported the Charlie Hebdo attackers would be very high.

PlaneSpeeking

Taytoland wrote: »

So you think people shouldn't mock Nazism or Communism with a drawing? Are some ideologies more equal than others? Mock away is what I say.

Life of Brian is one of my favourites - watched in the night before my Confirmation Mass.

Some "faiths" are just pathetically touchy, if we were the same my auntie would have blew up John Cleese.

TheShow

only if "Dublin" bans all other religious garb.

Dannyriver

K.Flyer wrote: »

But are they wearing Burqas and Niqabs because they want to, or are they wearing what their husbands or the law of their homeland insist that they wear? Because the Islamic Quran does Not say that they have to wear them!

Given that there was a time, in even the more restrictive of countries, that there was no requirements or cultural expectations to completely cover up until the powers that be (men) not all too long ago, introduced laws that enforced women to be covered up. Of course no such law for men!.
Now we see some women in these countries are kicking back as they see it as a form of oppressive discrimination and are taking to the streets to protest.
Unfortunately, just in the same way as some protested years ago, they are being arrested and locked up, for Not wearing them.
In my opinion, the Burqa and Niqab are symbols of oppression and descrimination imposed upon women by their men as a means to impose control over them.
And just like when women in the sixties started to empower themselves and burned their bras, I hope someday to see these muslim women, who are being opressed and controlled by these garments, taking them off and burning them as well.

That would be good but it aint gonna be fast tracked by people with absolutely no understanding of their culture telling them to burn them. All civil rights and change takes time, exposure to different ways of being and most of all compromise and understanding ....not holier than thou approaches and finger pointing.

end of the road

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You don't see an issue where people in their own country have to hide their beliefs lest they cause "offence" and yet we welcome people into the place who are allowed to display theirs ?

You honestly see no double standard there ?

that's not what she said. she said that an employer has a right to dictate what you do and don't wear within reason.

end of the road

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I know you dearly want to believe that but there clearly is.

One branch of religion is forbidden to display symbols - another is not.

they are in the work place if the employer decides so.

PlaneSpeeking

end of the road wrote: »

that's not what she said. she said that an employer has a right to dictate what you do and don't wear within reason.

And you clearly think a 1" high plain cross that can barely be seen should be banned, yet a Muslim colleague can wear the full KKK away kit and that is "within reason".

Odhinn

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Actually Odhinn,

No, Iran pre-1979 was a fairly common holiday destination, way more than Turkey is nowadays, then along came ayatollah khomeini and ousted the Shah.

The shah paid 20% of iranian oil revenue to the western powers that put him on his throne, he ran a police state that was strong on torture - akin to pinochets regime. They overthrew a democractic regime in the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

jmayo

Dannyriver wrote: »

Google the Lebanese civil war ...

Ah yes yet another conflict involving islam and it's primary strains.

Odhinn wrote: »

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

+1

Google Iran in the early 70s and before.

Better than the rancid ****hole it became.

Utter nonsense.

I seriously wonder what parallel universe some of you jokers live in.

The likes of Iran (and even Afghanistan) offered more freedoms and opportunities for women and minorities in the 1960s and 1970s than they have had in the decades since.
And why pray tell us is that ?

Only someone either an eejit or wilfully ignoring the facts of the influence of a certain religion would claim otherwise.

IBrows89 wrote: »

Fair enough, I can understand that.

But hate breeds more hate and it's an endless cycle.

The thing is if someone is wearing the likes of a burka, they are probably a fairly strict believer.
Now you as a non believer can love them all you want, it won't change their opinion of you and their view of you being lesser to them because afterall you are a kafir at the end of the day.

Odhinn

jmayo wrote: »

Ah yes yet another conflict involving islam and it's primary strains.



I seriously wonder what parallel universe some of you jokers live in.

The likes of Iran (and even Afghanistan) offered more freedoms and opportunities for women and minorities in the 1960s and 1970s than they have had in the decades since.
And why pray tell us is that ?

Being able to show off your hairdo while being dragged off by the SAVAK for 'freedom tickling'?

Dannyriver

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And you clearly think a 1" high plain cross that can barely be seen should be banned, yet a Muslim colleague can wear the full KKK away kit and that is "within reason".

While I think it's a funny analogy I'm not so sure you meant it as a joke and I think that kind of lack of understanding is the root of the problem.

Taytoland

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

So you think people shouldn't mock Nazism or Communism with a drawing? Are some ideologies more equal than others? Mock away is what I say.

Life of Brian is one of my favourites - watched in the night before my Confirmation Mass.

Some "faiths" are just pathetically touchy, if we were the same my auntie would have blew up John Cleese.

Pathetic is an understatement. All ideas have to be open to criticism and mockery. Islam can be no different.

end of the road

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The people wearing the burka have abhorrent views on the gay community - hence the fact I view them with loathing and mistrust.

no doubt some are but all of them? how would you know that exactly?

end of the road

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And you clearly think a 1" high plain cross that can barely be seen should be banned, yet a Muslim colleague can wear the full KKK away kit and that is "within reason".

nope, i think employers shouldn't be able to bann religious symbols from the work place.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And you clearly think a 1" high plain cross that can barely be seen should be banned, yet a Muslim colleague can wear the full KKK away kit and that is "within reason".

I don't think anyone on here, not eotr nor me either, stated that we think a cross should be banned.
We said, again, your employer makes the rules. Don't like them? Leave.
& when did your apology change from a muslim parent to a Muslim colleague?

jmayo

Odhinn wrote: »

The shah paid 20% of iranian oil revenue to the western powers that put him on his throne, he ran a police state that was strong on torture - akin to pinochets regime. They overthrew a democractic regime in the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

But did the regime have laws to make the following punishable by death ?

For instance acts such as “insulting the prophet,” apostasy, same-sex relations, adultery, and certain non-violent drug-related offenses are seen as crimes punishable by death.

Did the Shah's regime have the following rules ?
A married woman may not obtain a passport or travel outside the country without the written permission of her husband.
Or a married woman can be prevented by her husband from having certain occupations.

Iranian law denies freedom of religion to Baha’is and discriminates against them. At least 92 Baha’is were held in Iran’s prisons as of November 2017.

AFAIK it is only in the last decade that stoning for adulterous women was only phased out with a moratorium being placed on it in 2002.

Then again here is link to amnesty which I am sure all the luvvies will find very hard to argue against.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/iran-woman-sentenced-be-buried-chest-and-stoned-death

Some human rights organisations say that between 4,000-6,000 gay men and lesbians have been executed in Iran since 1979.
Not sure if that is correct but gay people are given tips on what not to do when in Iran.

The Shah was no great shakes but dear god the iran created by khomeini was barbaric in some respects.