Should Dublin ban Burqas and Hijabs?

dennispenn

dennispenn wrote: »

But would you? For a laugh?
Have Muslims a good sense of humour? Do you think they might see a funny side to it?
ðŸ˜

FYI, the Muslims I know have a great sense of humour.
What's your point?

Dannyriver

dennispenn wrote: »

But would you? For a laugh?
Have Muslims a good sense of humour? Do you think they might see a funny side to it?



ðŸ˜

You need to travel man...take a year out ... mix with different cultures ... come out from behind the computer screen... some of your posts are beyond childish. I ve been posting on this thread for a bit now and I'm listening to some of the arguments and even though I don t fully agree with them and feel they are misguided and illl informed but I do accept they feel strongly and fair enough they are entitled to express their views and I respect their right ...but yours are downright nasty and mean consistently...

Pretzill

bubblypop wrote: »

No I wouldn't do it for a laugh.
But what If I I decided one day, to wear one?
Just because I wanted to.
Should the Irish government ban me from wearing it?

Yes.

steve-collins

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12101647

This is just one of many bank robberys which have happened while a man has wore a niqab.

Security reasons alone should have these stone age garments banned.

end of the road

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

3 countries that I'm guessing you would class as liberal (well I think they are anyway) have banned it, if muslims want to live in the west they need to accept the way of life or return to Islamic countries where they can cover up all they want to.

they don't need to except a way of life that banns certain clothing from being worn because some people are insecure about people who are different to them.

thebull85 wrote: »

Why would it? They are clearly not the same thing.

because we would want to be consistent surely? or is it we just want to get at the muslims?

steve-collins wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12101647

This is just one of many bank robberys which have happened while a man has wore a niqab.

Security reasons alone should have these stone age garments banned.

banks for example can already ask one to remove the face covering so security reasons are not valid reasons for a burka bann.

Dannyriver

steve-collins wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12101647

This is just one of many bank robberys which have happened while a man has wore a niqab.

Security reasons alone should have these stone age garments banned.

Some dick decides to rob a bank so you think we should develop public policy on his actions...now if only the Niqab didn t exist he d have never come up with a different plan :rolleyes:

Oh wait ill dress up as a nun they ll never ban that ...perfect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyGrZjEVLt8

Danzy

The burqa is just a piece of cloth, like a Klan robe, just material but it demonstrates a leaning to a set of values that are incompatible with Liberal democracies, human rights etc.

If Hindus or Sikhs started going around in Burqas, no one could care less.

It would just be a piece of cloth, the baggage would not be there, it would not show an allegiance or openness to an extreme, regressive mindset.

thebull85

end of the road wrote: »

because we would want to be consistent surely? or is it we just want to get at the muslims?

I have never seen a nun with her full face covered so that all you can see are her eyes, have you?

end of the road

thebull85 wrote: »

I have never seen a nun with her full face covered so that all you can see are her eyes, have you?

that doesn't matter though. it's about what it represents in the minds of some.

thebull85

end of the road wrote: »

that doesn't matter though. it's about what it represents in the minds of some.

It clearly matters, because they are not the same thing at all.

K.Flyer

end of the road wrote: »

that doesn't matter though. it's about what it represents in the minds of some.

What do you think it represents, given that;
A. Its enforced (by rules and laws made up by men) upon women from an early age to wear it.
B. Strictly speaking it is not religious, as it is not called for in the Quran.
C. There is no such demands put on men of the same religous or cultural background to wear anything of the sort like it.

Captain Obvious

steve-collins wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12101647

This is just one of many bank robberys which have happened while a man has wore a niqab.

Security reasons alone should have these stone age garments banned.

If it was one of many then why did yo have to go back 7 years to Canada to find an example? Let me ask you this, if these items of clothing were banned do you think that man would not have robbed the bank? Robbing banks is also banned you know.

Dannyriver

Danzy wrote: »

The burqa is just a piece of cloth, like a Klan robe, just material but it demonstrates a leaning to a set of values that are incompatible with Liberal democracies, human rights etc.

If Hindus or Sikhs started going around in Burqas, no one could care less.

It would just be a piece of cloth, the baggage would not be there, it would not show an allegiance or openness to an extreme, regressive mindset.

Many people have values and beliefs that are incompatible with liberal democracies privately yet live within the laws of the country they are in. The Irish People living in the UAE have liberal values in a conservative country and get on fine so long as they don t break the law. The law is what matters not your beliefs , what you are proposing is something more akin to totalitarianism where if you are found out to have different views you can be arrested and ****ed into a gulag.

Dannyriver

thebull85 wrote: »

I have never seen a nun with her full face covered so that all you can see are her eyes, have you?

Technicality, ....ok ban the widows veil altogether , sure that would be the perfect ruse who d suspect a widow in a veil , or ban walking in to a bank on a freezing November with your scarf wrapped up to your nose which I have done numerous times in my life. ... Ridiculous whataboutery, nanny state , mind the children , nonsense.

Crea

thebull85 wrote: »

Why would it? They are clearly not the same thing.

They are both hair coverings based on a religious belief. Sounds like the same to me

Odhinn

Wibbs wrote: »

.............................

Saw that earlier when Odhinn posted that ME countries were doing their part and he got thanked for it, even though his figures were plucked from the air and not based on reality. One's position going in leads to blinkers to anything outside of it. On both sides.

Bollocks.

Mutant z

Why would anyone possibly want to engage in a conversation with someone who has their face completely covered or have to deal with them in a professional setting. Can you imagine if Irish women or western women in general were forced to cover up like this there would be outrage but yet again the religion of peace musnt be touched. I'm frankly sick to my stomach of these complete double standards in society where anyone non white gets a free pass to do what the hell they like and all sorts of accusations are thrown against those who point out their less than reasonable behaviour of some members of these groups.

thebull85

Crea wrote: »

They are both hair coverings based on a religious belief. Sounds like the same to me

Hair coverings that cover their whole face?

RustyNut

Mutant z wrote: »

Why would anyone possibly want to engage in a conversation with someone who has their face completely covered or have to deal with them in a professional setting. Can you imagine if Irish women or western women in general were forced to cover up like this there would be outrage but yet again the religion of peace musnt be touched. I'm frankly sick to my stomach of these complete double standards in society where anyone non white gets a free pass to do what the hell they like and all sorts of accusations are thrown against those who point out their less than reasonable behaviour of some members of these groups.

Who is forcing you to communicate with anyone? If you don't like the cut of someone's jib you are free to ignore them.

Dannyriver

Mutant z wrote: »

Why would anyone possibly want to engage in a conversation with someone who has their face completely covered or have to deal with them in a professional setting. Can you imagine if Irish women or western women in general were forced to cover up like this there would be outrage but yet again the religion of peace musnt be touched. I'm frankly sick to my stomach of these complete double standards in society where anyone non white gets a free pass to do what the hell they like and all sorts of accusations are thrown against those who point out their less than reasonable behaviour of some members of these groups.

Calm down fella , a tad exaggeration there. Borderline hysterical , you ll be looking for safe spaces from Muslims next.

Mutant z

Dannyriver wrote: »

Mutant z wrote: »

Why would anyone possibly want to engage in a conversation with someone who has their face completely covered or have to deal with them in a professional setting. Can you imagine if Irish women or western women in general were forced to cover up like this there would be outrage but yet again the religion of peace musnt be touched. I'm frankly sick to my stomach of these complete double standards in society where anyone non white gets a free pass to do what the hell they like and all sorts of accusations are thrown against those who point out their less than reasonable behaviour of some members of these groups.

Calm down fella , a tad exaggeration there. Borderline hysterical , you ll be looking for safe spaces from Muslims next.

Well the media did do all it could to bury those sexual exploitation of young girls by Muslim men in the UK look at how Tommy Robinson has been treated for bringing it to public notice he's been hounded and been issued death treats all because he had the audacity to point out the disgusting behaviour from members of the religion of peace, its at the point were even so much as criticising Islam has become an arrestable offense while young white girls who were abused by sexual devient perverts were ignored so not to offend that very religion, its disgusting.

dav3

Mutant z wrote: »

Well the media did do all it could to bury those sexual exploitation of young girls by Muslim men in the UK look at how Tommy Robinson has been treated for bringing it to public notice he's been hounded and been issued death treats all because he had the audacity to point out the disgusting behaviour from members of the religion of peace, its at the point were even so much as criticising Islam has become an arrestable offense while young white girls who were abused by sexual devient perverts were ignored so not to offend that very religion, its disgusting.

This isn't the UK. Take your whingefest somewhere else.

This is a thread about whether the hijab should be banned in county Dublin.

Mutant z

dav3 wrote: »

Mutant z wrote: »

Well the media did do all it could to bury those sexual exploitation of young girls by Muslim men in the UK look at how Tommy Robinson has been treated for bringing it to public notice he's been hounded and been issued death treats all because he had the audacity to point out the disgusting behaviour from members of the religion of peace, its at the point were even so much as criticising Islam has become an arrestable offense while young white girls who were abused by sexual devient perverts were ignored so not to offend that very religion, its disgusting.

This isn't the UK. Take your whingefest somewhere else.

This is a thread about whether the hijab should be banned in county Dublin.

Islam is the same wherever it is when it starts to get more dominant here the exact same problems it has caused in the UK will start to happen here to the fact is it's a medieval deology which will never fit into any modern 21st century civilisation.

dennispenn

Mutant z wrote: »

Islam is the same wherever it is when it starts to get more dominant here the exact same problems it has caused in the UK will start to happen here to the fact is it's a medieval deology which will never fit into any modern 21st century civilisation.

Yip.spot on.

Think it was last year, Angel Merkel shared a stage with the Turkish president and spoke about moderate Muslims.her ass licking cut no ice with the Turkish dictator who famously said, there is no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam.

Galwayguy35

end of the road wrote: »

they don't need to except a way of life that banns certain clothing from being worn because some people are insecure about people who are different to them.

Well they will accept it in Belgium France and Austria because it's the law.

Galwayguy35

Dannyriver wrote: »

Centuries of culture/religion/societal traditions summed up by Galway guy who knows ****all about it ...now that s arrogance if you ask me. As I said thankfully the Muslims in the UAE are more tolerant than you are.

I know enough about it to know that it's all a load of crap.

Dannyriver

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I know enough about it to know that it's all a load of crap.

Ah that s ok then I didn t know you were so well up and informed you should have said it was a load of crap earlier

Galwayguy35

Dannyriver wrote: »

[/U][/B]

Ah that s ok then I didn t know you were so well up and informed you should have said it was a load of crap earlier

That's no problem at all, happy to be of help.

Danzy

Dannyriver wrote: »

Centuries of culture/religion/societal traditions summed up by Galway guy who knows ****all about it ...now that s arrogance if you ask me. As I said thankfully the Muslims in the UAE are more tolerant than you are.

People have gone to jail in the UAE for kissing in public. People have been arrested for holding hands and jailed, drinking wine, tweeting opposition to fox hunting, putting a hand on a man as you push through a bar and on and on and on.

The UAE is as bizarre a society as one can get.

Dannyriver

Danzy wrote: »

People have gone to jail in the UAE for kissing in public. People have been arrested for holding hands and jailed, drinking wine, tweeting opposition to fox hunting, putting a hand on a man as you push through a bar and on and on and on.

The UAE is as bizarre a society as one can get.

You are truly making an ape of yourself if you think anyone in Dubai is in fear of what you just posted. You might want to talk to someone who s actually lived there Danzy, or else go work for the daily mail or the Sun..... picking sensationalist extremely rare incidents as a barometer of everyday life is the ultimate in fake news. Trust me there s as much vice to be had in Dubai as you d get in Bangkok if that s what your after. you basically haven t a clue what you are talking about.

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

You are truly making an ape of yourself if you think anyone in Dubai is in fear of what you just posted. You might want to talk to someone who s actually lived there Danzy, or else go work for the daily mail or the Sun..... picking sensationalist extremely rare incidents as a barometer of everyday life is the ultimate in fake news. Trust me there s as much vice to be had in Dubai as you d get in Bangkok if that s what your after. you basically haven t a clue what you are talking about.

This recent case in Saudi Arabia may be relevant to the discussion ...

An Egyptian man in Saudi Arabia has been arrested after a video of him having breakfast with a woman went viral on Twitter.

In the video, a man with an Egyptian dialect eats breakfast beside a woman wearing a full face veil, who many assumed to be Saudi.

This is in contravention of the law in Saudi Arabia, where in workplaces or eateries like McDonald's and Starbucks, families and single men have to sit in different areas.

Women must sit separately from single men in these places.

They are not allowed to carry out most activities without being accompanied by their male guardians, usually a father or husband, but possibly a brother or a son.

See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-45471549

DChancer

gozunda wrote: »

This recent case in Saudi Arabia may be relevant to the discussion ...



See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-45471549

How is that relevant to Dublin?
I mean you do know that Dublin is NOT in Saudi Arabia?

pauldla

gozunda wrote: »

This recent case in Saudi Arabia may be relevant to the discussion ...



See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-45471549

As you are quoting the poster directly above you, and apparently in response to that poster, I feel compelled to point out that Dubai isn't in Saudi Arabia.

gozunda

DChancer wrote: »

How is that relevant to Dublin?I mean you do know that Dublin is NOT in Saudi Arabia?

Cos you obviously havn't read the thread evidently - this is the OPs opening:

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. 

Are we discussing geography? For the hard of understanding yeah it's relevant imo to some of the isues in the discussion which were commented on previously. T'is strange that a news story should attract such negativity for being news! Doesn't suit the narrative of some I'd guess - strange that ...

pauldla wrote: »

As you are quoting the poster directly above you, and apparently in response to that poster, I feel compelled to point out that Dubai isn't in Saudi Arabia.

You don't say? :rolleyes:

Ha Hillarious! Just love the gratuitous geography lessons...


If you can't contribute anything useful yourself....

 ¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯. 

Dannyriver

gozunda wrote: »

This recent case in Saudi Arabia may be relevant to the discussion ...



See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-45471549

How could posting an article about Saudi Arabia be relevant to the UAE , or are you under the impression that Arabia is a country where all the laws are the same. If so you are not the only western person that hasn t a clue. Do you know when Americans ask us is Ireland the same as Britian and we go what a thick ****, well this is unfortunately what Arabs and African s have to deal with regularly.

pauldla

gozunda wrote: »

pauldla wrote: »

As you are quoting the poster directly above you, and apparently in response to that poster, I feel compelled to point out that Dubai isn't in Saudi Arabia.

You don't say? :rolleyes:

Ha Hillarious! Just love the gratuitous geography lessons...


If you can't contribute anything useful yourself....

 ¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯. 

But I did contribute something useful. I pointed out that Dubai isn’t in Saudi. Who knows, you might even be grateful for that information one day. Evidently not today though.

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

How could posting an article about Saudi Arabia be relevant to the UAE , or are you under the impression that Arabia is a country where all the laws are the same. If so you are not the only western person that hasn t a clue. Do you know when Americans ask us is Ireland the same as Britian and we go what a thick ****, well this is unfortunately what Arabs and African s have to deal with regularly.

More geography eh :rolleyes:
It's not the freekin geographic location that's relevant just in case you didn't you understand. jeez there's thick comments and there's that ...

For the hard of understanding. The discussion is based on the OPs premise that:

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.

So posters got talking about oppresion in different middle eastern countries.. And I posted about a news story which detailed an example of this:

 

An Egyptian man in (county redacted for the hard of understanding) has been arrested after a video of him having breakfast with a woman ( in a full face veil) went viral on Twitter...This is in contravention of the law in (), where in workplaces or eateries like McDonald's and Starbucks, families and single men have to sit in different areas. Women must sit separately from single men in these places.They are not allowed to carry out most activities without being accompanied by their male guardians, usually a father or husband, but possibly a brother or a son.

Now if that isn't clear enough I can also spell it out in words of one syllable and less if you like ...

Dannyriver

gozunda wrote: »

More geography eh :rolleyes:
It's not the freekin geographic location that's relevant just in case you didn't you understand. jeez there's thick comments and there's that ...

Of course it is the post was initially put up to illustrate that there are parts of the middle east which are Muslim countries that allow westerners to live a western existence, And saudi arabia isn t one of them do u understand now. :eek:

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

Of course it is the post was initially put up to illustrate that there are parts of the middle east which are Muslim countries that allow westerners to live a western existence, And saudi arabia isn t one of them do u understand now.

Nah ya missed it again. Do read the rest of the post

:rolleyes:

Dannyriver

gozunda wrote: »

Nah ya missed it again. Do read the rest of the post

:rolleyes:

Fair enough your one of those kind of guys well at least now you know that Arabia isn t one big country ...:rolleyes:

Graces7

Dannyriver wrote: »

Technicality, ....ok ban the widows veil altogether , sure that would be the perfect ruse who d suspect a widow in a veil , or ban walking in to a bank on a freezing November with your scarf wrapped up to your nose which I have done numerous times in my life. ... Ridiculous whataboutery, nanny state , mind the children , nonsense.

and ban eg myself from wearing a face mask to prevent infection as I have a damaged immune system?

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

Fair enough your one of those kind of guys well at least now you know that Arabia isn t one big country ...:

Grand so -Thanks anyway for the irrelevant /ocd geography lesson. And yes I know the countries that make up the UAE on one hand and the other adjoining countries such as Saudi Arabia on the other. I can send you a map if you like

Btw - your lack of comprehension is showing

Dannyriver

gozunda wrote: »

Grand so -Thanks anyway for the irrelevant /ocd geography lesson. And yes I know the countries that make up the UAE on one hand and the other adjoining countries such as Saudi Arabia on the other. I can send you a map if you like

You do now

Roger Hassenforder

Hillarious.
Geography lessons aplenty, but plenty of gloss over:

"This is in contravention of the law in Saudi Arabia, where in workplaces or eateries like McDonald's and Starbucks, families and single men have to sit in different areas.

Women must sit separately from single men in these places.

They are not allowed to carry out most activities without being accompanied by their male guardians, usually a father or husband, but possibly a brother or a son."


But but but it's what they want.../i]

gozunda

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Hillarious.
Geography lessons aplenty, but plenty of gloss over:

"This is in contravention of the law in Saudi Arabia, where in workplaces or eateries like McDonald's and Starbucks, families and single men have to sit in different areas.

Women must sit separately from single men in these places.

They are not allowed to carry out most activities without being accompanied by their male guardians, usually a father or husband, but possibly a brother or a son."


ABut but but it's what they want.../i]

The Twitter storm which has broken out over that - is worth watching with many asking what exactly was wrong with the work colleagues having breakfast together ...

Dannyriver

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Hillarious.
Geography lessons aplenty, but plenty of gloss over:

"This is in contravention of the law in Saudi Arabia, where in workplaces or eateries like McDonald's and Starbucks, families and single men have to sit in different areas.

Women must sit separately from single men in these places.

They are not allowed to carry out most activities without being accompanied by their male guardians, usually a father or husband, but possibly a brother or a son."


ABut but but it's what they want.../i]

Am Roger no one is condoning or glossing over the abhorrent rigid fundamentalist bull**** laws in Saudi Arabia ,the point that was being made was the fact that some people on here want to ban the burqa/niqab and I made the point that if we do we are being less liberal than the UAE where westerners are allowed to live western lives . Another poster then claimed this is not true and equated life in saudi arabia with that of the UAE which is patently wrong.

Danzy

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Hillarious.
Geography lessons aplenty, but plenty of gloss over:

"This is in contravention of the law in Saudi Arabia, where in workplaces or eateries like McDonald's and Starbucks, families and single men have to sit in different areas.

Women must sit separately from single men in these places.

./i]

Look to Labour party meetings from the last election in Britain for the same happening.

Going on about Arabia being different is a red herring.

The belief system is the problem.

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

Am Roger no one is condoning or glossing over the abhorrent rigid fundamentalist bull**** laws in Saudi Arabia ,the point that was being made was the fact that some people on here want to ban the burqa/niqab and I made the point that if we do we are being less liberal than the UAE where westerners are allowed to live western lives . Another poster then claimed this is not true and equated life in saudi arabia with that of the UAE which is patently wrong.

It's nothing about 'westerners living western lives (sic) rather those forcing oppression on others because of their gender.

And it's not a fracking competition between UAE and Saudi or whatever country you're hellbent on using to support that ludricous argument

Your lack of comprehension is still showing ...

Dannyriver

gozunda wrote: »

It's nothing about 'westerners living western lives (sic) rather those forcing oppression on others because of their gender.

And it's not a fracking competition between UAE and Saudi or whatever country you're hellbent on using to support that ludricous argument

Your lack of comprehension is still showing ...

How so?

And why use (sic)

Roger Hassenforder

Dannyriver wrote: »

Am Roger no one is condoning or glossing over the abhorrent rigid fundamentalist bull**** laws in Saudi Arabia ,the point that was being made was the fact that some people on here want to ban the burqa niqab and I made the point that if we do we are being less liberal than the UAE where westerners are allowed to live western lives . Another poster then claimed this is not true and equated life in saudi arabia with that of the UAE which is patently wrong.

Which is why I have an issue with "it"

It's a symbolic of a most backward and repressive ideology, that in essence, rejects "western" values. I'm not arrogant enough to assume the moral high ground and purport to be more enlightened. If you reject me- I reject you.

If they dont want to wear it, banning it will be to their advantage, and encourage integration. Allow them throw off their repressive yoke, let them feel the sun and wind on their face.

If they actually want to wear it, all the more reason to ban it; let them fcuk off and wear it where it's not banned.

If it's so important, why don't the men where it?



Niqab: meh. Doesnt really bother me
Assuming they want to wear it.