Should Dublin ban Burqas and Hijabs?

Dannyriver

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.

Someone who doesn t break the law will do me and even that s debatable because the law can be an ass sometimes ...but hey who am I to judge anothers choices ...I dont see it as my place to judge how anyone is or isn t a 'fully engaged participant in society' people are who they are and they are that way for many reasons based on their biological psychological and sociological make up. Even you Roger ... like I said people are complex and from an existentialist perspective so is life as are the vagaries that inevitably accompany it .

Roger Hassenforder

Dannyriver wrote: »

Someone who doesn t break the law will do me and even that s debatable because the law can be an ass sometimes ...but hey who am I to judge anothers choices ...I dont see it as my place to judge how anyone is or isn t a 'fully engaged participant in society' people are who they are and they are that way for many reasons based on their biological psychological and sociological make up. Even you Roger ... like I said people are complex and from an existentialist perspective so is life as are the vagaries that inevitably accompany it .

That's an interesting take on it. While I dont necessarily disagree with you, I think theres more to it than just not breaking society's laws
I'd regard such a person as a law abiding citizen though. An essential component nonetheless.
Theres a risk such a view might be compared to asking someone whether they dont "sin" because it's wrong in the eyes of their god, or because it's the right thing to do, e.g. steal or kill. Is it the rules that dictate how you behave? or altruism, empathy, charity, kindness etc.

Dannyriver

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

That's an interesting take on it. While I dont necessarily disagree with you, I think theres more to it than just not breaking society's laws
I'd regard such a person as a law abiding citizen though. An essential component nonetheless.
Theres a risk such a view might be compared to asking someone whether they dont "sin" because it's wrong in the eyes of their god, or because it's the right thing to do, e.g. steal or kill. Is it the rules that dictate how you behave? or altruism, empathy, charity, kindness etc.

Thank you.

Snickers Man

Just a thought about another completely unrelated controversy: the recent eviction of squatters from an unoccupied house in central Dublin by a private security firm whose members were unidentifiable and dressed in balaclavas.

Would a law against burkas make actions like that fundamentally illegal? Would not the Gardai who were standing by to "prevent public disorder" not have been compelled to arrest the dodgy guys in balaclavas?

If you really don't like people running round with hidden faces, why accept it from a bunch of ex-military types throwing their weight around?

Dannyriver

https://www.joe.ie/news/james-obrien-lbc-irish-people-microchipped-brexit-623241

Isn t it remarkable how Peter from Bury is so sure in his understanding of a situation that he knows absolutely nothing about, and so adamant that his solution will work and so politely dismissive of those who actually do understand the situation, and so ignorant of the fact that its his feeling of superiority to the Irish that gives him licence to know the best solution. I'm sure he sees himself as a nice understanding man and perhaps he is, but ?

Roger Hassenforder

Dannyriver wrote: »

https://www.joe.ie/news/james-obrien-lbc-irish-people-microchipped-brexit-623241

Isn t it remarkable how Peter from Bury is so sure in his understanding of a situation that he knows absolutely nothing about, and so adamant that his solution will work and so politely dismissive of those who actually do understand the situation, and so ignorant of the fact that its his feeling of superiority to the Irish that gives him licence to know the best solution. I'm sure he sees himself as a nice understanding man and perhaps he is, but ?

Dude, I gotta ask.

What's this got to do with burkas?

Dannyriver

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Dude, I gotta ask.

What's this got to do with burkas?

I suppose I could just as easily ask you When has this ever been about Burkas?

Roger Hassenforder

Dannyriver wrote: »

I suppose I could just as easily ask you When has this ever been about Burkas?

Other then the fact the thread title is "Should Dublin ban burkas?"you have me...

Dannyriver

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Other then the fact the thread title is "Should Dublin ban burkas?"you have me...

I doubt if I do Roger

Roger Hassenforder

Dannyriver wrote: »

I doubt if I do Roger

We'll pretend you do!

gozunda

Snickers Man wrote: »

Just a thought about another completely unrelated controversy: the recent eviction of squatters from an unoccupied house in central Dublin by a private security firm whose members were unidentifiable and dressed in balaclavas.

Would a law against burkas make actions like that fundamentally illegal? Would not the Gardai who were standing by to "prevent public disorder" not have been compelled to arrest the dodgy guys in balaclavas?

If you really don't like people running round with hidden faces, why accept it from a bunch of ex-military types throwing their weight around?

The 'dodgy guys in balaclavas" were the security guys detailed to evict the illegal squatters.

As far as I know PPE is required where people are at risk through violence or other hazard etc. The headgear is removed as is required. The was a recent case of a Gardai involved in a drugs bust who was not wearing a balaclava - whose photo was put up on Social media. He and his family have experienced harassment and recieved death threats following this.

The difference with head covers worn 24/7* by women (whether they have a choice or otherwise) is that such coverings are permanent.

The guys having to wear balaclavas or other headgear for safety as is the case with motorcycle helmets etc do not compare with the cultural requirements of fundamentalist religous belief except for those who engage in hyperbole.


* Non literal use to describe being obliged to wear same at all times when in public....

Dannyriver

gozunda wrote: »

The 'dodgy guys in balaclavas" were the security guys detailed to evict the illegal squatters.

As far As I know PPE is required where people are at risk through violence or other hazard etc. The headgear is removed as is required. The was recent case of a Gardai involved in a drugs bust who was not wearing a balaclava - whose photo was put up on Social media. He and his family have experienced harassment and recieved death threats following this.

The difference with head covers worn 24/7 by women (whether they have a choice or otherwise) is that such coverings are permanent.

The guys having to wear balaclavas or other headgear for safety as is the case with motorcycle helmets etc do not compare with the cultural requirements of fundamentalist religous belief except for those who engage in hyperbole.

24/7?

Roger Hassenforder

Dannyriver wrote: »

24/7?

Hyperbole
-everybody is at it...

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

24/7?

Ah the expert at reducing all discussion to simplistic reductionism!

We've done - geography, discotechs, photography - we will now have to look at the use of the differences between descriptive and literal language for time

:rolleyes:

Dannyriver

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Hyperbole
-everybody is at it...

The dearth of knowledge displayed regarding the Arab world that I've been observing here leads me to believe that he really believes it :eek:

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

The dearth of knowledge displayed regarding the Arab world that I've been observing here leads me to believe that he really believes it

As again we have self declared expertise on the "Arab World" that doesn't accept that any one else in the discusion has any first hand experience of same :rolleyes:

I think this may also be relevant ...

The Authority Fallacy ...

A (claims to be) an authority on a particular topic

A says something about that topic

A (thinks he) is (absolutely) correct

Roger Hassenforder

Dannyriver wrote: »

The dearth of knowledge displayed regarding the Arab world that I've been observing here leads me to believe that he really believes it :eek:

In fairness Danny, i think you can do better than the following:

Dannyriver wrote: »

24/7?

....not your finest work.

Notwithstanding the "Arab world" is not a homogenous culture, where your supreme authority draws on your personal experience of the quintessential "Arabness"

Dannyriver

gozunda wrote: »

Ah the expert at reducing all discussion to simplistic reductionism!

We've done - geography, discotechs, photography - we will now have to look at the use of the differences between descriptive and literal language for time

:rolleyes:

Apologies but I ve always believed effective communication should be in the language of the receiver

Dannyriver

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

In fairness Danny, i think you can do better than the following:



....not your finest work.

Notwithstanding the "Arab world" is not a homogenous culture, where your supreme authority draws on your personal experience of the quintessential "Arabness"

Very much aware of that thank you Roger :(

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

Apologies but I ve always believed effective communication should be in the language of the receiver

What's that a receiver? You want to phone me? No offence but no thanks

Roger Hassenforder

Dannyriver wrote: »

Apologies but I ve always believed effective communication should be in the language of the receiver

A language they understand !

Dohnjoe

Skinhead Kane wrote: »

I have been thinking about this topic for quite some time now and have yet to make a real judgement on what truly would be a correct answer.

I think the fact that there are about 8 Muslims in the entire country means that this is a non-issue, but sure people love getting riled up over nothing, so let's make a thread on it

Dannyriver

gozunda wrote: »

What's that a receiver? You want to phone me? No offence but no thanks

I rest my case

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I think the fact that there are about 8 Muslims in the entire country means that this is a non-issue, but sure people love getting riled up over nothing, so let's make a thread on it

Ah sure sorry we never knew! Make sure to send a letter to the CSO and let them know that their figures according to Census 2016 where 63,400 people self declared their religion as Islam are obviously wrong ...

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

I rest my case

Grand so. Put it beside the phone so you can find it next time

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Ah sure sorry we never knew! Make sure to send a letter to the CSO and let them know that their figures according to Census 2016 where 63,400 people self declared their religion as Islam are obviously wrong ...

Grossly missing my point there

I've never seen a full face Niqab in Ireland, have you?

To reiterate, it's hardly a pressing issue

gormdubhgorm

Nope does not bother me.
I would be more offended by backwards baseball hats, stupid looking skinny jeans that show off bandy little legs, oh and tracksuits on non-athlete types.

statesaver

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I've never seen a full face Niqab in Ireland, have you?

I have. In a county Galway town a number of years back.

It’s colour was all blue from head to toe.

Very strange sight tbh.

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Grossly missing my point there I've never seen a full face Niqab in Ireland, have you?To reiterate, it's hardly a pressing issue

The reply was to your point exactly. As to your first question - yes indeed - I certainly have. Second question - depends whether gender based oppression and related issues bothers you I suppose. Anyway take a look through the thread it's not just about 'full face niqabs' btw ... :rolleyes:

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

yes indeed - I certainly have.

Nah

related issues bothers you ...

Actually nope, not interested in non-issues that bother internet types, like full face garb and veils in Ireland

But call me back when it's actually an issue

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nah
Actually nope, not interested in non-issues that bother internet types, like full face garb and veils in IrelandBut call me back when it's actually an issue

So why bother commenting on de internet so? :pac:

Don't think anyone will be bothered giving to you a call one way or the other ...

Dohnjoe

It's a 66 page thread on mostly nothing, maybe if someone pointed it out a little earlier

Roger Hassenforder

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Grossly missing my point there

I've never seen a full face Niqab in Ireland, have you?

To reiterate, it's hardly a pressing issue

Daily dude.

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a 66 page thread on mostly nothing, maybe if someone pointed it out a little earlier

For some one claiming to have no interest in the topic - you're sure doing a lot of hanging out and commenting :rolleyes:

Conspiracy theories and politics =>

Roger Hassenforder

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a 66 page thread on mostly nothing, maybe if someone pointed it out a little earlier

Itd a 66 page discussion thread on a theoretical question, something I cant see us but follow the UK example.

There's pros and cons, people offering their opinion as they see fit. Each opinion as valid as the other, whether you disagree with it or not. I don't agree with Danny for example, but I respect his opinion.

Thanks for your contribution though. I for one really appreciate the time you took to verbalize yours. I'll give you a thanks, might encourage more profund utterances in a discussion thread you don't seem to give a proverbial, but willing to contribute. Fair play. Place be very dull otherwise

Roger Hassenforder

On a mobile but 4 posts already in two pages?
That's prolific.
Suggests someone "doth profess their innocence too much"

gozunda

Least any one believes this issue is only of concern to those in Ireland ...

This from the recent B Johnson debate in the UK..

Imam Taj Hargey, from the Oxford Islamic Congregation branded the burqa a 'hideous tribal ninja-like garment' and said its has 'no Koranic legitimacy'. Mr Hargey warned that the burqa has become trendy among more militants Islamists who peddle views which can be a gateway for religious extremism.

He urged the UK to follow in the footsteps of other European countries like France and Denmark and ban the burqa.

He added: 'The burqa and niqab are hideous tribal ninja-like garments that are pre-Islamic, non-Koranic and therefore un-Muslim. Although this deliberate identity-concealing contraption is banned at the Kaaba in Mecca it is permitted in Britain, thus precipitating security risks, accelerating vitamin D deficiency, endorsing gender-inequality and inhibiting community cohesion.'

He said that some backward-looking elements in the Muslim community have managed to persuade may in British society that it is in the Islamic faith for women to cover their faces.

But he said this must be challenged in Britain and that the state should step in to stop it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6044481/Senior-British-Imam-backs-Boris-Johnson-burqa-row.html

Roger Hassenforder

Well that's a new one, vitamin D defficiency!

WinnyThePoo

Yes I agree. We should FORCE woman to do as we tell them. It's the only way they will learn. Oppression from all sides.

Dannyriver

gozunda wrote: »

Ah sure sorry we never knew! Make sure to send a letter to the CSO and let them know that their figures according to Census 2016 where 63,400 people self declared their religion as Islam are obviously wrong ...

Jesus , Mary and Joseph wait until they all have kids the place will be overrun with the feckers, they ll be putting forward candidates for government ,looking for civil rights, in the Dail, ****ing legislating, banning bacon, setting up rape gangs , not allowing anyone to drink, allah left right and centre. Mosques on every corner, Mullah's coming out of our ears. We'll be ghettoized worse than Sweden, All out Sharia law I tell you. Gozunda s right we need to sort out the human rights of these women immediately. The Burka must go, and it must go now.

Corb_lund

Dannyriver wrote: »

Jesus , Mary and Joseph wait until they all have kids the place will be overrun with the feckers, they ll be putting forward candidates for government ,looking for civil rights, in the Dail, ****ing legislating, banning bacon, setting up rape gangs , not allowing anyone to drink, allah left right and centre. Mosques on every corner, Mullah's coming out of our ears. We'll be ghettoized worse than Sweden, All out Sharia law I tell you. Gozunda s right we need to sort out the human rights of these women immediately. The Burka must go, and it must go now.

There are clearly more than 63k, the last census was a joke in how many people didn't fill it out (I was living in a right tip at the time and saw first hand most people just ignored it)

And seeing that gender is 50:50 you've got 30k+ who statistically are younger and who will have substantially higher than average amount of children (and have already started) so even in the absence of any more immigration (which seems the opposite path the gov is taking) means that we're going to be substantially higher by next census.

Europe has been betrayed by this fact.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/29/muslim-population-in-europe-could-more-than-double

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

Jesus , Mary and Joseph wait until they all have kids the place will be overrun with the feckers, they ll be putting forward candidates for government ,looking for civil rights, in the Dail, ****ing legislating, banning bacon, setting up rape gangs , not allowing anyone to drink, allah left right and centre. Mosques on every corner, Mullah's coming out of our ears. We'll be ghettoized worse than Sweden, All out Sharia law I tell you. Gozunda s right we need to sort out the human rights of these women immediately. The Burka must go, and it must go now.

Oh look more hyperbole versus census figures Lol ....

But do ignore the figures are nothing more than the reply to the hillarious 'eight' comment as espoused by your friend Donjon above

CSO figures to go off into another irrelevant rant??? Really?

Is that really the best you can do?
Please try harder Danny- it's really getting a bit repetitive...

Genuine question danny - what is it about gender based oppression and related issues that are a big joke for you?

Hey even Muslims are standing up against this issue. Did you not read this? No? Why is that danny? A bit more of a fundamentalist viewpoint perhaps than yer letting on?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6044481/Senior-British-Imam-backs-Boris-Johnson-burqa-row.html

Dannyriver

gozunda wrote: »

Oh look more hyperbole versus census figures Lol ....

But do ignore the figures are nothing more than the reply to the hillarious 'eight' comment as espoused by your friend Donjon above

CSO figures to go off into another irrelevant rant??? Really?

Is that really the best you can do?
Please try harder Danny- it's really getting a bit repetitive...

Genuine question danny - what is it about gender based oppression and related issues that are a big joke for you?

Hey even Muslims are standing up against this issue. Did you not read this? No? Why is that danny? A bit more of a fundamentalist viewpoint perhaps than yer letting on?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6044481/Senior-British-Imam-backs-Boris-Johnson-burqa-row.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/fashion/news/forget-hats-balaclavas-are-the-most-stylish-way-to-stay-warm-in-the-snow-a3777991.html

:cool:

Roger Hassenforder

Dannyriver wrote: »

https://www.standard.co.uk/fashion/news/forget-hats-balaclavas-are-the-most-stylish-way-to-stay-warm-in-the-snow-a3777991.html

:cool:

Excellent rebuttal Danny.

(Actually, the irony of the link text is brilliant: "balaclava...stylish way to stay warm in the snow")

:cool:

Dannyriver

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Excellent rebuttal Danny.

(Actually, the irony of the link text is brilliant: "balaclava...stylish way to stay warm in the snow")

:cool:

Thank you Roger I thought so too

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

https://www.standard.co.uk/fashion/news/forget-hats-balaclavas-are-the-most-stylish-way-to-stay-warm-in-the-snow-a3777991.html
:

Ah even more simplistic reductionism!

So far We've done - geography, discotechs, photography - differences between descriptive and literal language for time, and now let's look at some B listers opinion on what they constitute a fashion lol!

Danny I have to hand it to you - your approach to the subject is certainly unique but unfortunately is as about much use a chocolate teapot...

Dannyriver

gozunda wrote: »

Ah even more simplistic reductionism!

So far We've done - geography, discotechs, photography - differences between descriptive and literal language for time, and now let's look at some B listers opinion on what they constitute a fashion lol!

Danny I have to hand it to you - your approach to the subject is certainly unique but unfortunately is as about much use a chocolate teapot...

Thank you Gozunda your negative assessments of my opinions means a lot and is further confirmation of my open mindedness and basic human decency.

cfuserkildare

Dannyriver wrote: »

Thank you Gozunda your negative assessments of my opinions means a lot and is further confirmation of my open mindedness and basic human decency.

Can you stop tearing strips off each other?
Get back to topic please,
Otherwise we would All appreciate it if you opened your own thread for arguing with each other!!!

gozunda

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Can you stop tearing strips off each other?
Get back to topic please, Otherwise we would All appreciate it if you opened your own thread for arguing with each other!!!

I completly agree about bringing it back to the discusion btw. It's not been easy. Anyway enough about yerman and the ego.
He is on ignore ...


It looks like it's only a matter of time before EU wide legislation on this issue is brought in imo

See:

https://www.dw.com/en/full-face-veil-ban-how-laws-differ-across-europe/a-44049185

Dannyriver

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Can you stop tearing strips off each other?
Get back to topic please,
Otherwise we would All appreciate it if you opened your own thread for arguing with each other!!!

All in good spirit no?