Should Dublin ban Burqas and Hijabs?

Graces7

Danzy wrote: »

Are they?

Most seem to view it the same as a person who wears a Swastika T shirt.

They may be alright people but they are marking themselves as being committed proponents of militant regressivism and adhering to a belief set that is nearly always at odds with basic human rights and dignity.

In YOUR extremist view..

PlaneSpeeking

Graces7 wrote: »

That rules most of us out then!
Including most old wans like me. All but housebound, living alone.

I would add someone who does not discriminate or judge another person because their way of life/dress etc is different . Especially when they have no idea what that way of life means. Whose mind and heart are open. To whom "different"is not a threat.

Raising kids is a huge " contribution to society"

I lived in a town here where there were families in the same supermarket, the women fully veiled, with their little ones. We chatted easily. Eyes are very expressive.

Hopefully the next generation will get this right.

No, properly raising good kids is - just "kids" is not.

Shenshen

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Allowing that not all are forced to wear a burka, but for the ones who are.
How do we either engage with these women, or help those who need helping?

I doubt engaging with the men would work.

I would disagree, engaging with their entire family, and their religious community, is paramount to help those women.

What I would be in favour of would be mandatory education. And not just education on what we do here in Ireland, but much more importantly on what other Muslims in other countries do, think, and believe.

Some posters have quite rightly pointed out that niqab and burqa are not something provisioned by Islam at all. They are cultural clothes that have their origin in local traditions that are mixed up with Islam. Knowledge about that and about the various different interpretations and flavours of Islam that exist in the world now, and have existed in the past, may do a lot to address people's notions of what it actually is to be Muslim, and how they want to engage with that.

But you can't just tell the women that, particularly if it's their family putting them under such pressures. It needs to be addressed to all involved.

Shenshen

Danzy wrote: »

Are they?

Most seem to view it the same as a person who wears a Swastika T shirt.

They may be alright people but they are marking themselves as being committed proponents of militant regressivism and adhering to a belief set that is nearly always at odds with basic human rights and dignity.

So now the suggestion is to outlaw swatiska T-Shirts?

Just for the record, while seeing someone wear one would make me instantly take a strong dislike to that person based on the message they're sending, I still would oppose legislation to ban them.

BeerWolf

Got zero issues with the Hijab, the Burka on the other hand... so inconsiderate of my ninjaphobia!

Samsong

Can I keep my make America great again hat?

Caliden

Hijab simply no, it's a headscarf.

Burqa, yes. It's akin to a balaclava.
Why is a burqa allowed but not a balaclava?
If it's religious reasons, what's stopping me creating my own beliefs where a balaclava is my garb of choice.

I'm all for embracing other cultures but there are parts that do not necessarily fit with ours.

Captain Obvious

Caliden wrote: »

Hijab simply no, it's a headscarf.

Burqa, yes. It's akin to a balaclava.
Why is a burqa allowed but not a balaclava?
If it's religious reasons, what's stopping me creating my own beliefs where a balaclava is my garb of choice.

I'm all for embracing other cultures but there are parts that do not necessarily fit with ours.

Balaclavas are allowed. I mean you'd have to have had your head in the sand not to see the pictures of two men in balaclavas involved in the eviction in Frederick St. Do you think they have a balaclava licence or something?

stratowide

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Balaclavas are allowed. I mean you'd have to have had your head in the sand not to see the pictures of two men in balaclavas involved in the eviction in Frederick St. Do you think they have a balaclava licence or something?

How far would you think I'd get walking down o'Connell st with a balaclava on my head..?

Timberrrrrrrr

stratowide wrote: »

How far would you think I'd get walking down o'Connell st with a balaclava on my head..?

Have often done it in middle of winter on way to various construction sites.

Caliden

Caliden wrote: »

Hijab simply no, it's a headscarf.

Burqa, yes. It's akin to a balaclava.
Why is a burqa allowed but not a balaclava?
If it's religious reasons, what's stopping me creating my own beliefs where a balaclava is my garb of choice.

I'm all for embracing other cultures but there are parts that do not necessarily fit with ours.

Where is a balaclava not allowed?
You do know you can wear one right?

stratowide

stratowide wrote: »

How far would you think I'd get walking down o'Connell st with a balaclava on my head..?

All the way?

Why do people think balaclavas cannot be worn?
Thankfully our government don't tell us what we can & cannot wear....

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Not this tired "argument" again, ironically thanked by its most frequent proponent in the last few pages (Who also claimed to be "done with the thread").
Top stuff lads.

well at least you admit your views are down to basic Islamophobia. I was trying to ascribe a positive, if very misguided, slant to your views. thank you for disabusing me of that.

stratowide

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Have often done it in middle of winter on way to various construction sites.

I work in maintenance.So if I wear my navy overalls and black balaclava around town I will eventually be reported and stopped by Gardai.
Will I get served in a shop or pub..?

Not against the law to do so...bu not religious enough either to not get hassled.

Grayson

Danzy wrote: »

Are they?

Most seem to view it the same as a person who wears a Swastika T shirt.

They may be alright people but they are marking themselves as being committed proponents of militant regressivism and adhering to a belief set that is nearly always at odds with basic human rights and dignity.

Someone who wears a burqa or hijab is a proponent of a military force?

Your view lacks nuance. I have no doubt that there's some that do have those beliefs. There's a huge range of reasons why people wear one and a huge range of beliefs among the wearers. Saying that they are all like that is like saying that anyone who wears an american flag tee shirt is a fan of carpet bombing. Sure there's going to a few that do but not all.

Grayson

stratowide wrote: »

How far would you think I'd get walking down o'Connell st with a balaclava on my head..?

The whole way. You probably wouldn't get into a bank but that's a different matter. I mentioned earlier in the thread about halloween. On that weekend you'll see loads of people walking around town with masks and face coverings. Face covering isn't illegal. It's perfectly legal. It can be restricted in certain places. Banks, airport security etc. And that's fair enough. They are private places with a security requirement.

stratowide

Grayson wrote: »

The whole way. You probably wouldn't get into a bank but that's a different matter. I mentioned earlier in the thread about halloween. On that weekend you'll see loads of people walking around town with masks and face coverings. Face covering isn't illegal. It's perfectly legal. It can be restricted in certain places. Banks, airport security etc. And that's fair enough. They are private places with a security requirement.

I have no problem with people wearing whatever they want.Couldn't care less really.

If a woman wearing a Burka can walk into a bank hassle free and I get stopped when I wear my balaclava then I have an issue.Both hide the face.If the balaclava has connotation's with bank robberies then picture a scarf instead.

Why should someone's religious/cultural beliefs get preferential treatment.?

Dannyriver

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Not this tired "argument" again, ironically thanked by its most frequent proponent in the last few pages (Who also claimed to be "done with the thread").
Top stuff lads.

You keeping an eye on me now as well Roger yeah?

Lets just say I exercised my right to change my mind.. and while I'm here let me add that Your comment underlined below really shows you for what you are...and fair play to Shenshen for luring you away from your rationalizing to reveal the authoritarian beneath the 'this is about women's rights bollix' you ve been peddling. A right little Cardinal Cullen with your 'fully engaged participant in society' Wouldn't everything be so much easier if we were all just good boys and girls .. life is a tad more complicated than that Roger and people are a lot more complex and one person's contributing member might be another's tyrant. Some of the most important people in history would have failed your 'fully engaged participant in society' model you do know that yes. I'll leave it there below for anyone who missed it.

A fully engaged participant I'd regard as someone who can hold a conversation with anyone else in society, irrespective of their sex and martial status, hold down a job should they so wish, who can be regarded as a complete person.in their own right, not an object. Who can enjoy the company of the opposite sex in social, work and leisure settings.Someone who isnt regarded as a second class citizen by the ideology she subscribes to.

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well at least you admit your views are down to basic Islamophobia. I was trying to ascribe a positive, if very misguided, slant to your views. thank you for disabusing me of that.

Nothing of the sort sport! Wrong as Molls bell. Continue to disabuse yourself..

I'm interpreting your use of "Islamophobe" as me being anti Muslim...? Am I right?
So I'd better rip up the probabation report I'm completing for HR on one of my recent recruits, to take her off probabation, who I interviewd and hired. A Muslim. Didnt bother me then, doesnt now.
When I get home, I'd better kick the two Palestinian kids off the Xbox with mine, ban them from playing FIFA 17 (i know) or Minecraft in my home... better stop teaching the young lad how to hold a Hurley...take back the bike I gave him... better cancel the invitation to the couple to call up Saturday, (fcuk I'll miss the delicious cinnamon buns)...stop the girls playing with their LOL dolls.
Actually, now I think of it, i think one of the kids I train in soccer might be Muslim, his dad usually drops him, and he has a brown face, he must be Muslim...


Oh it's a clever little neologism all right. Shut down any criticism of your sacred cow, especially when you're afraid to fuly commit to using "Muslimophobe" because you know in your heart you're wrong as fcuk. "Humpty Dumpty" language as Salman Rushdie called it. A nonsense word. (Ironically that a burqa not even originally Islamic being wholly lost on you)

But
if you're using it as tarring me as being against the Islamisization of Europe, you'd probably be correct. I've no wish to live in an Islamic "republic". I doubt you have either. Maybe you do. If not we're both Islamophobes...

Which context are you using it in? You're probably not even sure. Maybe you dont know the difference. But when people reach for their goto "insult" , it simply reveals their whole argument as being built on sand, no foundation, susceptible to collapse, predicated on the assumption if someone else expresses an opinion other than the one they cling to, they're either a bigot or a racist. Or both. "An Islamophobe".
GTFO, you're out of your depth.

Dannyriver wrote: »

You keeping an eye on me now as well Roger yeah?

Lets just say I exercised my right to change my mind.. and while I'm here let me add that Your comment underlined below really shows you for what you are...and fair play to Shenshen for luring you away from your rationalizing to reveal the authoritarian beneath the 'this is about women's rights bollix' you ve been peddling. A right little Cardinal Cullen with your 'fully engaged participant in society' Wouldn't everything be so much easier if we were all just good boys and girls .. life is a tad more complicated than that Roger and people are a lot more complex and one person's contributing member might be another's tyrant. Some of the most important people in history would have failed your 'fully engaged participant in society' model you do know that yes. I'll leave it there below for anyone who missed it.

A fully engaged participant I'd regard as someone who can hold a conversation with anyone else in society, irrespective of their sex and martial status, hold down a job should they so wish, who can be regarded as a complete person.in their own right, not an object. Who can enjoy the company of the opposite sex in social, work and leisure settings.Someone who isnt regarded as a second class citizen by the ideology she subscribes to.

And chapeau to you for changing your mind. I'm glad you stayed, your exit would have been the threads loss...


So any way back to your latest contribution.
My "comment below showed me for what I am"
Indeed. So what am I?
Notwithstanding, you omitted a pertinent little detail that suggests the list is not exhaustive, "things like that" suggests an oppurtunity for further discussion. Am I demanding too much? I'd love to know what there is tyraniccal? I'd be sure to never again suggest an ability to freely talk to someone of the opposite sex is a desirable component of a functional and egalitarian society. Please point out the errors in my train of thought...

So what would you regard as a fully engaged participant in society? How a woman in a burka fulfils these criteria...

Feel free to add/ amend my nonexhaustive list of examples. I'd be very interested to see what I've gotten wrong, I'm certainly amenable to change my view.

Captain Obvious

stratowide wrote: »

I work in maintenance.So if I wear my navy overalls and black balaclava around town I will eventually be reported and stopped by Gardai.
Will I get served in a shop or pub..?

Not against the law to do so...bu not religious enough either to not get hassled.

You may be stopped. You still aren't committing a crime and there is nothing the Gardaí can do other than check your ID.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Nothing of the sort sport! Wrong as Molls bell. Continue to disabuse yourself..

I'm interpreting your use of "Islamophobe" as me being anti Muslim...? Am I right?
So I'd better rip up the probabation report I'm completing for HR on one of my recent recruits, to take her off probabation, who I interviewd and hired. A Muslim. Didnt bother me then, doesnt now.
When I get home, I'd better kick the two Palestinian kids off the Xbox with mine, ban them from playing FIFA 17 (i know) or Minecraft in my home... better stop teaching the young lad how to hold a Hurley...take back the bike I gave him... better cancel the invitation to the couple to call up Saturday, (fcuk I'll miss the delicious cinnamon buns)...stop the girls playing with their LOL dolls.
Actually, now I think of it, i think one of the kids I train in soccer might be Muslim, his dad usually drops him, and he has a brown face, he must be Muslim...

Now you just look silly. You seem to be pushing this idea that being bigoted requires some overt aggressive stance against people, a physical revulsion to them even. Do you think being racist requires you to be a member of the KKK or spit on every black person you see or do you accept that it can exist in more subtle and directed behaviour?

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Nothing of the sort sport! Wrong as Molls bell. Continue to disabuse yourself..

I'm interpreting your use of "Islamophobe" as me being anti Muslim...? Am I right?
So I'd better rip up the probabation report I'm completing for HR on one of my recent recruits, to take her off probabation, who I interviewd and hired. A Muslim. Didnt bother me then, doesnt now.
When I get home, I'd better kick the two Palestinian kids off the Xbox with mine, ban them from playing FIFA 17 (i know) or Minecraft in my home... better stop teaching the young lad how to hold a Hurley...take back the bike I gave him... better cancel the invitation to the couple to call up Saturday, (fcuk I'll miss the delicious cinnamon buns)...stop the girls playing with their LOL dolls.
Actually, now I think of it, i think one of the kids I train in soccer might be Muslim, his dad usually drops him, and he has a brown face, he must be Muslim...


Oh it's a clever little neologism all right. Shut down any criticism of your sacred cow, especially when you're afraid to fuly commit to using "Muslimophobe" because you know in your heart you're wrong as fcuk. "Humpty Dumpty" language as Salman Rushdie called it. A nonsense word. (Ironically that a burqa not even originally Islamic being wholly lost on you)

But
if you're using it as tarring me as being against the Islamisization of Europe, you'd probably be correct. I've no wish to live in an Islamic "republic". I doubt you have either. Maybe you do. If not we're both Islamophobes...

Which context are you using it in? You're probably not even sure. Maybe you dont know the difference. But when people reach for their goto "insult" , it simply reveals their whole argument as being built on sand, no foundation, susceptible to collapse, predicated on the assumption if someone else expresses an opinion other than the one they cling to, they're either a bigot or a racist. Or both. "An Islamophobe".
GTFO, you're out of your depth.







And chapeau to you for changing your mind. I'm glad you stayed, your exit would have been the threads loss...


So any way back to your latest contribution.
My "comment below showed me for what I am"
Indeed. So what am I?
Notwithstanding, you omitted a pertinent little detail that suggests the list is not exhaustive, "things like that" suggests an oppurtunity for further discussion. Am I demanding too much? I'd love to know what there is tyraniccal? I'd be sure to never again suggest an ability to freely talk to someone of the opposite sex is a desirable component of a functional and egalitarian society. Please point out the errors in my train of thought...

So what would you regard as a fully engaged participant in society? How a woman in a burka fulfils these criteria...

Feel free to add/ amend my nonexhaustive list of examples. I'd be very interested to see what I've gotten wrong, I'm certainly amenable to change my view.

I'll ignore the vitriol at the start and just comment on the part in bold. You assume that the other person wants to talk to you. that they are somehow obliged to do so. People are free to talk (or not talk) to whoever they want. Wearing a niqab sends the message that the women does not want to talk to members of the opposite sex. You seem to think that this is undesirable to society. A persons free choice is undesirable to society. Why dont you go have a think about that.

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'll ignore the vitriol at the start and just comment on the part in bold. You assume that the other person wants to talk to you. that they are somehow obliged to do so. People are free to talk (or not talk) to whoever they want. Wearing a niqab sends the message that the women does not want to talk to members of the opposite sex. You seem to think that this is undesirable to society. A persons free choice is undesirable to society. Why dont you go have a think about that.

Mother of god.
Ignore the part you're so wrong and pulled up on your bu115hit.
Anyway.


I'm assuming nothing. No one is obliged to take to me. If they dont want to talk to me, I wont be offended. Nor am I too offended if they think I and all other men, might be a bit rapey, so they'd better cover everything up in case we can't control our urges. Anyone could look at men and think we're a bit rapey. Nor do I have too much of an issue with the ID thing. Although I can see why some Muslim countries have banned them (So surely that proves its not an anti Muslim position. Hint. It's an anti extremism thing!)

I just have an issue with a barrier to face to face
communications, and an overt symbol that the person wearing it does not want to engage in society, but will take that which society has to offer, but most importantly, because its a symbol and a tool of the oppression of millions of women by men, who incidentally in some countries are currently campaigning to get rid of the less prescriptive hijab. If they feel thus about a hijab, how must they feel about a burka?
When you look at the mindset and ideology of those who prescribe their wearing, I absolutely reject it and all it entails. Hence I reject the burka and would support a ban.

If only it was as simple as "maybe the women dont want to talk to members of the opposite sex". Can you comprehend that maybe members of the opposite sex, sometimes within the same family, are not allowed talk to her? That her husband/brother forbids it until a marriage is arranged. Might not even be her choice. Why only the women ? If members of the opposite sex shouldnt talk to each other, why don't both sexes wear a burka. Why are the men so freely allowed mix with members of the opposite sex.
No this argument fails.

The only reason to voluntarily wear one is to segregate yourself from society, and demonstrate you hold a most repugnant ideology dear. An ideology that rejects fundamental values the society which you expect to embrace yours, and to accept your explicit rejection of theirs.. That's assuming it's a choice. There may well be some. But I suspect, many do not have a choice.

You see, I dont think I'm better than them. I'm not arrogant enough to assume we need to demonstrate how liberal we are, and how tolerant we are of such ideology, because we're enlightened westerners, theres too much of a whiff of a colonial superiority complex in that.


All people can say in support of not banning it, is we shouldnt tell women what to wear. This isnt a scarf, or a sweater. This is whether we truly believe in equality of sexes, and what we are willing to sacrifice to ensure all women are free to enjoy that which society offers, should they so wish.
If only one women does not want to wear it, by tolerating it, you've condoned her oppression.
If you really really want to wear it, wear it at home. Where your business is your own. Where no one cares.

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Mother of god.
Ignore the part you're so wrong and pulled up on your bu115hit.
Anyway.


I'm assuming nothing. No one is obliged to take to me. If they dont want to talk to me, I wont be offended. Nor am I too offended if they think I and all other men, might be a bit rapey, so they'd better cover everything up in case we can't control our urges. Anyone could look at men and think we're a bit rapey. Nor do I have too much of an issue with the ID thing. Although I can see why some Muslim countries have banned them (So surely that proves its not an anti Muslim position. Hint. It's an anti extremism thing!)

I just have an issue with a barrier to face to face
communications, and an overt symbol that the person wearing it does not want to engage in society, but will take that which society has to offer, but most importantly, because its a symbol and a tool of the oppression of millions of women by men, who incidentally in some countries are currently campaigning to get rid of the less prescriptive hijab. If they feel thus about a hijab, how must they feel about a burka?
When you look at the mindset and ideology of those who prescribe their wearing, I absolutely reject it and all it entails. Hence I reject the burka and would support a ban.

If only it was as simple as "maybe the women dont want to talk to members of the opposite sex". Can you comprehend that maybe members of the opposite sex, sometimes within the same family, are not allowed talk to her? That her husband/brother forbids it until a marriage is arranged. Might not even be her choice. Why only the women ? If members of the opposite sex shouldnt talk to each other, why don't both sexes wear a burka. Why are the men so freely allowed mix with members of the opposite sex.
No this argument fails.

The only reason to voluntarily wear one is to segregate yourself from society, and demonstrate you hold a most repugnant ideology dear. An ideology that rejects fundamental values the society which you expect to embrace yours, and to accept your explicit rejection of theirs.. That's assuming it's a choice. There may well be some. But I suspect, many do not have a choice.

You see, I dont think I'm better than them. I'm not arrogant enough to assume we need to demonstrate how liberal we are, and how tolerant we are of such ideology, because we're enlightened westerners, theres too much of a whiff of a colonial superiority complex in that.


All people can say in support of not banning it, is we shouldnt tell women what to wear. This isnt a scarf, or a sweater. This is whether we truly believe in equality of sexes, and what we are willing to sacrifice to ensure all women are free to enjoy that which society offers, should they so wish.
If only one women does not want to wear it, by tolerating it, you've condoned her oppression.
If you really really want to wear it, wear it at home. Where your business is your own. Where no one cares.

So you're a feminist now as well? bloody hell.

cfuserkildare

Again, I ask,
Why should a women from here be under Soooo much pressure to Not wear a, say Bikini in a Muslim state, but Then force the Bhurkha in a Non-Muslim state to be permitted?
How would you feel if your sister/cousin/daughter was arrested and whipped for wearing such Revealing clothing? Would you agree with allowing Muslim Culture upon us then?

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Now you just look silly. You seem to be pushing this idea that being bigoted requires some overt aggressive stance against people, a physical revulsion to them even. Do you think being racist requires you to be a member of the KKK or spit on every black person you see or do you accept that it can exist in more subtle and directed behaviour?

Just to clarify, because there's a danger I'm after missing your point in suggesting I'm a bigot because I'm not overt in my bigotry.


You think I'm a bigot because I have a view on an extremist ideology of a religon (setting aside its geographical origin), that members within the same religon themselves reject.

So a Muslim who thinks a burka should be banned (as I am arguing here) is an anti Muslim bigot...
That surely is the pinnacle of your foolish utterances, [the ne plus ultra...

I cant believe you've exposed yourself this badly
You were doing so well. Anyone associated with that post should be embarrassed. I'm scarlet for you.
I suggest you withdraw from the field, you've soiled your own armour, figuratively speaking.
Regroup. Come back when I've forgotten.

ohnonotgmail

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Again, I ask,
Why should a women from here be under Soooo much pressure to Not wear a, say Bikini in a Muslim state, but Then force the Bhurkha in a Non-Muslim state to be permitted?
How would you feel if your sister/cousin/daughter was arrested and whipped for wearing such Revealing clothing? Would you agree with allowing Muslim Culture upon us then?

How does one force the burqa to be be permitted? You mean we have not specifically banned it?

Graces7

This is actually really , if you will pardon the expression, none of your business.

You are not a woman, you are not Muslim. Your views are based on YOUR culture .

Same as when any conquering nation has moved into a new country. Out go social mores and customs that are of that country, by force if need be, and in comes an outside alien oppression.

You have no idea what Muslim women think and feel. They certainly would not want an outside alien male deciding how they should be living and dressing. The sheer... AAAAAAAAAAAARGH! You have no idea with your superimposing of western ideas on life .

And you invoke, Mary, Mother of God....

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Mother of god.
Ignore the part you're so wrong and pulled up on your bu115hit.
Anyway.


I'm assuming nothing. No one is obliged to take to me. If they dont want to talk to me, I wont be offended. Nor am I too offended if they think I and all other men, might be a bit rapey, so they'd better cover everything up in case we can't control our urges. Anyone could look at men and think we're a bit rapey. Nor do I have too much of an issue with the ID thing. Although I can see why some Muslim countries have banned them (So surely that proves its not an anti Muslim position. Hint. It's an anti extremism thing!)

I just have an issue with a barrier to face to face
communications, and an overt symbol that the person wearing it does not want to engage in society, but will take that which society has to offer, but most importantly, because its a symbol and a tool of the oppression of millions of women by men, who incidentally in some countries are currently campaigning to get rid of the less prescriptive hijab. If they feel thus about a hijab, how must they feel about a burka?
When you look at the mindset and ideology of those who prescribe their wearing, I absolutely reject it and all it entails. Hence I reject the burka and would support a ban.

If only it was as simple as "maybe the women dont want to talk to members of the opposite sex". Can you comprehend that maybe members of the opposite sex, sometimes within the same family, are not allowed talk to her? That her husband/brother forbids it until a marriage is arranged. Might not even be her choice. Why only the women ? If members of the opposite sex shouldnt talk to each other, why don't both sexes wear a burka. Why are the men so freely allowed mix with members of the opposite sex.
No this argument fails.

The only reason to voluntarily wear one is to segregate yourself from society, and demonstrate you hold a most repugnant ideology dear. An ideology that rejects fundamental values the society which you expect to embrace yours, and to accept your explicit rejection of theirs.. That's assuming it's a choice. There may well be some. But I suspect, many do not have a choice.

You see, I dont think I'm better than them. I'm not arrogant enough to assume we need to demonstrate how liberal we are, and how tolerant we are of such ideology, because we're enlightened westerners, theres too much of a whiff of a colonial superiority complex in that.


All people can say in support of not banning it, is we shouldnt tell women what to wear. This isnt a scarf, or a sweater. This is whether we truly believe in equality of sexes, and what we are willing to sacrifice to ensure all women are free to enjoy that which society offers, should they so wish.
If only one women does not want to wear it, by tolerating it, you've condoned her oppression.
If you really really want to wear it, wear it at home. Where your business is your own. Where no one cares.

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So you're a feminist now as well? bloody hell.

Stunning rejoinder.
10/10.
There's no comeback to that.

I can console myself at least I'm not being accused of not giving a fcuk about womens issues.
Every cloud and all that.

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Stunning rejoinder.
10/10.
There's no comeback to that.

I can console myself at least I'm not being accused of not giving a fcuk about womens issues.
Every cloud and all that.

well i'm sure you think you do but in reality you only do for the most patronising of reasons. And even that is assuming you do give a fcuk and it's not just another excuse to have a pop at islam.

Roger Hassenforder

Graces7 wrote: »

This is actually really , if you will pardon the expression, none of your business.

You are not a woman, you are not Muslim. Your views are based on YOUR culture .

Same as when any conquering nation has moved into a new country. Out go social mores and customs that are of that country, by force if need be, and in comes an outside alien oppression.

You have no idea what Muslim women think and feel. They certainly would not want an outside alien male deciding how they should be living and dressing. The sheer... AAAAAAAAAAAARGH! You have no idea with your superimposing of western ideas on life .

And you invoke, Mary, Mother of God....

Graces,
If you're basing an argument on something being none of my business, because I'm neither a women or a Muslim, that argument can be used in any circumstances.
Luas drivers, Donald Trump, priests and popes, Bitcoin etc.

I had you pegged as a mature lady, in a rural setting loved and beloved of cats and dogs. Should I include arbiter of discourse and contributors, of who is entitled to post and what opinions one should hold?

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well i'm sure you think you do but in reality you only do for the most patronising of reasons. And even that is assuming you do give a fcuk and it's not just another excuse to have a pop at islam.

Will you make up your mind.

Am I a feminist or not?
Am I an anti Muslim or an Islamphobe.

You're not distinguishing yourself here.

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Will you make up your mind.

Am I a feminist or not?
Am I an anti Muslim or an Islamphobe.

You're not distinguishing yourself here.

I think you will find it is you not distinguishing yourself. You have put forward a couple of reasons why you want it banned and frankly none of them pass the sniff test.

Captain Obvious

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Just to clarify, because there's a danger I'm after missing your point in suggesting I'm a bigot because I'm not overt in my bigotry.


You think I'm a bigot because I have a view on an extremist ideology of a religon (setting aside its geographical origin), that members within the same religon themselves reject.

So a Muslim who thinks a burka should be banned (as I am arguing here) is an anti Muslim bigot...
That surely is the pinnacle of your foolish utterances, [the ne plus ultra...

I cant believe you've exposed yourself this badly
You were doing so well. Anyone associated with that post should be embarrassed. I'm scarlet for you.
I suggest you withdraw from the field, you've soiled your own armour, figuratively speaking.
Regroup. Come back when I've forgotten.

No Roger, I'm just pointing out how idiotic your "I didn't fire a Muslim or kick one out of my house defence" is.

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think you will find it is you not distinguishing yourself. You have put forward a couple of reasons why you want it banned and frankly none of them pass the sniff test.

They're my reasons. You have yet to lucidly and coherently counter any of them.

Your entire argument, to continue with your sniff test analogy, can be distilled down to:

A: I'm apparentky an Islamophobe but you don't seem to be able to explain why. Or how

B: I'm a feminist who doesn't give a fcuk about women

You really are swilling crud in your little round bottom flask, trying to convince others you've a quality product.
1/10. Wouldnt buy.

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No Roger, I'm just pointing out how idiotic your "I didn't fire a Muslim or kick one out of my house defence" is.

No you accused me of being a bigot (presumably because I'm arguing against an extremist symbol), which i deny and supported with just today's interaction with Muslim people, professionally and socially.
How else would I demonstrate im not a bigot as charged, but treat Muslim people as I treat all people. I don't afford them a special status, immune from criticism.

I think i see the problem for you. You're clearly unable to accept I might not be a bigot.
It's ok though, I'm ok with that. You've expressed yourself quite clearly. I appreciate who I'm dealing with.

Captain Obvious

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

No you accused me of being a bigot (presumably because I'm arguing against an extremist symbol), which i deny and supported with just today's interaction with Muslim people, professionally and socially.
How else would I demonstrate im not a bigot as charged, but treat Muslim people as I treat all people. I don't afford them a special status, immune from criticism.

I think i see the problem for you. You're clearly unable to accept I might not be a bigot.
It's ok though, I'm ok with that. You've expressed yourself quite clearly. I appreciate who I'm dealing with.

That wasn't me you were replying to.

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That wasn't me you were replying to.

But you replied to me stating how silly I was, and suggesting what a bigot I was ...and doubling down how idiotic I was
Change of tack now... distancing yourself from accusing me of being a bigot.
Interesting.

Captain Obvious

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

But you replied to me stating how silly I was, and suggesting what a bigot I was ...and doubling down how idiotic I was
Change of tack now... distancing yourself from accusing me of being a bigot.
Interesting.

I didn't call you a bigot Roger but I do think you are one. And not because of your little stories about all the Muslims you don't spit on or your objection to unrestricted immigration but because you use a persons religion or origin as an assessment of their character.

Samsong

We wouldn't need this conversation if we just banned Muslims from the country altogether.
I haven't met anyone who is actually happy that they are here anyway

Roger Hassenforder

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I didn't call you a bigot Roger but I do think you are one. And not because of your little stories about all the Muslims you don't spit on or your objection to unrestricted immigration but because you use a persons religion or origin as an assessment of their character.

Tomorrow Captain Obvious explains how black people can't be racist, and why Morocco is a hotbed of anti Muslim bigotry.

Gerrraorra dat. You're accusing me of being a bigot for rejecting an aspect of an extremist ideology, some of whose adherents also reject it.

You just can't wrap your head around the fact I'm not a bigot towards Muslims, no matter how hard you wish it to be true, or what way you try spin it. In your world anyone who disagrees with you can be labelled a bigot or racist. It's pathetic.

I've nothing against them.
It's the extremists I've an issue with. As do a lot of Muslims.

Timberrrrrrrr

Samsong wrote: »

We wouldn't need this conversation if we just banned Muslims from the country altogether.
I haven't met anyone who is actually happy that they are here anyway

How would you implement that?

Samsong

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How would you implement that?

Me personally?
I'd close all of those Saudi Arabian funded mosques and outlaw the practice of the religion here. Halal food would be first to go in an effort to starve them out.
Mass deportations would be a bi monthly event.

I would then turn my attention to Christians. They can go too.

Out ta ****

Roger Hassenforder

Samsong wrote: »

Me personally?
I'd close all of those Saudi Arabian funded mosques and outlaw the practice of the religion here. Halal food would be first to go in an effort to starve them out.
Mass deportations would be a bi monthly event.

I would then turn my attention to Christians. They can go too.

Out ta ****

At least your consistent.

Samsong

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

At least your consistent.

Harsh but fair. It's the only way

Timberrrrrrrr

Samsong wrote: »

Me personally?
I'd close all of those Saudi Arabian funded mosques and outlaw the practice of the religion here. Halal food would be first to go in an effort to starve them out.
Mass deportations would be a bi monthly event.

I would then turn my attention to Christians. They can go too.

Out ta ****

Good luck with your crusade so, ill donate a €.or 2 toward your funeral :rolleyes:

Roger Hassenforder

Samsong wrote: »

Harsh but fair. It's the only way

How would the zealots of the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster fare?

Out tae fcuk too?

Surely not the IPUists?

Samsong

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Good luck with your crusade so, ill donate a €.or 2 toward your funeral :rolleyes:

I don't need your money. I need your vote

Samsong

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

How would the zealots of the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster fare?

Out tae fcuk too?

Surely not the IPUists?

I don't know who they are but if they are adults who believe in fairy tales then they are gone too

Roger Hassenforder

Samsong wrote: »

I don't know who they are but if they are adults who believe in fairy tales then they are gone too

You're going to need a lot of planes.
Or boats.

Samsong

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You're going to need a lot of planes.
Or boats.

We can buy the planes cheap from airlines who are looking to retire some of their fleet

The boats we can build ourselves. It will revitalise the shipbuilding industry. When the job is done they can be converted to fishing boats.

We will have lots of fish after we leave the EU and kick their super trawlers out of our waters