Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dutch "Burqa ban" comes into force from today

Options
1…7891113

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Sunni discriminating Sunni on religious grounds...but you're ok with them being discriminated against when it suits you....


    There are sects within Sunni and Shia islam.

    ....where was I ok with them being discriminated against?


  • Options
    #303
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Odhinn wrote: »
    There are sects within Sunni and Shia islam.

    ....where was I ok with them being discriminated against?

    Earlier


  • Options
    #304
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Earlier




    A link please.


  • Options
    #305
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Odhinn wrote: »
    A link please.

    Its just up a few posts ^^
    (The one where you're ok with for one reason what you're not ok with me for several. The one with the bank. Telling Muslim women what to wear.*)


    I've figured out this lark.

    Reason shmreason
    Just shout "racist", "bigot", "discrimination" , or my favourite one lately "xenophobe" (not you) loudly and often. And then just move the goalposts.

    Its a fantastic tactic.

    *you see, I dont think you're a racist/bigot/pro discrimination any more than i am. But its very easy to throw a label.


  • Options
    #306
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    pinkyeye wrote: »
    I don't support a blanket ban because I don't like any society that says "you can/cannot wear a certain thing".
    i dont think they banned blankets, just when they cover ones face


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Its just up a few posts ^^
    (The one where you're ok with for one reason what you're not ok with me for several. The one with the bank. Telling Muslim women what to wear.*)


    It's telling anyone who has a face cover they can't use it due to security in a bank, therefore its not anti-muslim, but a specific ban based on the nature of the area, not a general ban for all areas.


  • Options
    #308
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    Odhinn wrote: »
    It's telling anyone who has a face cover they can't use it due to security in a bank, therefore its not anti-muslim, but a specific ban based on the nature of the area, not a general ban for all areas.

    What’s your feeling on burkas in school and in government jobs?


  • Options
    #309
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    What’s your feeling on burkas in school and in government jobs?




    In primary and secondary schools on a teacher - no. You might be more specific with regard to what consitutes "government jobs" - behind the scenes office work and the like strikes me as being grand.


  • Options
    #310
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    Odhinn wrote: »
    In primary and secondary schools on a teacher - no. You might be more specific with regard to what consitutes "government jobs" - behind the scenes office work and the like strikes me as being grand.

    Burkas in teenagers in school?


  • Options
    #311
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »
    Burkas in teenagers in school?


    I could argue that one either way, tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    Odhinn wrote: »
    I could argue that one either way, tbh.

    Crosses in hospitals?


  • Options
    #313
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Odhinn wrote: »
    It's telling anyone who has a face cover they can't use it due to security in a bank, therefore its not anti-muslim, but a specific ban based on the nature of the area, not a general ban for all areas.

    My view is no-one should have their face covered to either mask their identity or limit communication/societal interaction (unless PPE or for state security). (In before but muh kids at Halloween..")

    Its like the old maxim re atheists , it"s one who believe in one god less than a Christian. In this case, what you are ok with in one instance, I'd apply it to all society, in addition to the security aspect (not that I'm racially profiling) , there's the benifet of encouraging integration, something I'd value. And if a face covering is specifically worn to prevent this, all the more reason to ban it. You're free to wear other articles of your faith.

    So it really boils down to this: you actually are ok with telling women what to wear, what they cant wear when it affects you/your interests - you've argued its not discrimination as you would apply it to everyone equally. As would I, to everyone, at all times.


  • Options
    #314
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Odhinn wrote: »
    In primary and secondary schools on a teacher - no. You might be more specific with regard to what consitutes "government jobs" - behind the scenes office work and the like strikes me as being grand.

    No public servant should be allowed wear a garmet designed to limit communication or reject the world without the veil.

    I'd prefer all garments of faith were banned for public servants, but "i can live with" shtreimel, fez, kippah, hijab, collanders, dastaar etc.
    (I only know the plural of one)


  • Options
    #315
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    My view is no-one should have their face covered to either mask their identity or limit communication/societal interaction (unless PPE or for state security). (In before but muh kids at Halloween..")

    Its like the old maxim re atheists , it"s one who believe in one god less than a Christian. In this case, what you are ok with in one instance, I'd apply it to all society, in addition to the security aspect (not that I'm racially profiling) , there's the benifet of encouraging integration, something I'd value. And if a face covering is specifically worn to prevent this, all the more reason to ban it. You're free to wear other articles of your faith.

    So it really boils down to this: you actually are ok with telling women what to wear, what they cant wear when it affects you/your interests - you've argued its not discrimination as you would apply it to everyone equally. As would I, to everyone, at all times.




    Freedom of choice encourages integration. No choice hardly does.


  • Options
    #316
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Freedom of choice encourages integration. No choice hardly does.

    Intolerance, rejection and barriers are not compatible with successful integration (notwithstanding your assumption of an actual freedom of choice exists)

    But yet you're ok telling women what to wear when its suits your/yours interests.


  • Options
    #317
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Intolerance, rejection and barriers are not compatible with successful integration (notwithstanding your assumption of an actual freedom of choice exists)

    But yet you're ok telling women what to wear when its suits your/yours interests.




    When and where did this occur?


  • Options
    #318
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Odhinn wrote: »
    When and where did this occur?

    This is not the first time...

    The bank/security thing.


  • Options
    #319
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    This is not the first time...

    The bank/security thing.




    That's a cross gender/ religion ban. Nothing anti-woman about it.


  • Options
    #320
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Odhinn wrote: »
    That's a cross gender/ religion ban. Nothing anti-woman about it.

    Nope.
    You're telling a woman (and everyone else) how to dress (i.e. not to cover their face) for security reasons.
    I'm telling a woman ( and everyone else) not to cover their face. At all times.

    The only difference between us is, that I know Im asking a lot, you're just a hypocrite. Decrying what Im suggesting, yet when it suits you, being perfectly ok with it.


  • Options
    #321
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Nope.
    You're telling a woman (and everyone else) how to dress (i.e. not to cover their face) for security reasons. (...................), being perfectly ok with it.




    You're being silly, to put it politely.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Nope.
    You're telling a woman (and everyone else) how to dress (i.e. not to cover their face) for security reasons.
    I'm telling a woman ( and everyone else) not to cover their face. At all times.

    The only difference between us is, that I know Im asking a lot, you're just a hypocrite. Decrying what Im suggesting, yet when it suits you, being perfectly ok with it.

    nobody can cover their face in certain areas for security reasons.
    muslim women cannot wear a traditional item of clothing.

    yeah those two are EXACTLY the same.


  • Options
    #323
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    nobody can cover their face in certain areas for security reasons.
    muslim women cannot wear a traditional item of clothing.

    yeah those two are EXACTLY the same.


    One can stomach one reason because it suits oneself, but not the other , because " muh something telling women what to wear something".

    The women in question may not want to remove their veil, indeed their grasp of religon may explicitly forbid it, yet you expect them to comply with a rule , as I said, because it suits you/your ideals.

    Its the exact same action, forcing them to reveal their face, only a different reason. But one you can stomach, because security.


    Jesus.
    Another hypocrite.


  • Options
    #324
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    One can stomach one reason because it suits oneself, but not the other , because " muh something telling women what to wear something".

    The women in question may not want to remove their veil, indeed their grasp of religon may explicitly forbid it, yet you expect them to comply with a rule , as I said, because it suits you/your ideals.

    Its the exact same action, forcing them to reveal their face, only a different reason. But one you can stomach, because security.


    Jesus.
    Another hypocrite.

    One is discriminating based on religion and gender. the other does not discriminate at all.


  • Options
    #325
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Odhinn wrote: »
    You're being silly, to put it politely.

    Really?
    Thats what you're reduced to?

    Rejection of an arguement as "silly" when your hypocrisy is pointed out?
    We're both expecting the same thing, only different reasons, but only one of us is hypocritical enough to call the other a racist/bigot/discriminating etc for the exact same thing - telling a woman what she cant wear.


    See where you went wrong is accusing me just in the business of discriminating against Muslims, (as did another poster calling me a racist). Both throw away slurs seeking to shut down conversation. I just have a different view. But not motivated by prejudice.

    So when you get into the nub of it, as with most things, it turns out we're all along the spectrum of tolerance somewhere. Some of us can see this easier, and some of us seem to be astride some high horse of moral indignation and righteousness, tasked with calling out the "racists and bigots" who differ from the expected selfrighteous orthodoxy of the self appointed protectors of society, the arbiters of righteousness.

    But really just another bunch of hypocrites; history is filled with them.


  • Options
    #326
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    One is discriminating based on religion and gender. the other does not discriminate at all.

    That which you refer to in the latter of your point, is what I would apply everywhere, unilaterally, to all. For several reasons (including yours)
    Thats the least discriminatory thing you can do.
    It has no regard to sex, gender, religon etc.
    (As arguably that which you seek to argue for does)


    So how do we differ?
    Application? Rationale?

    But instead lets just condemn others and call them racists/bigots


  • Options
    #327
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    That which you refer to in the latter of your point, is what I would apply everywhere, unilaterally, to all. For several reasons (including yours)
    Thats the least discriminatory thing you can do.
    It has no regard to sex, gender, religon etc.
    (As arguably that which you seek to argue for does)


    So how do we differ?
    Application? Rationale?

    But instead lets just condemn others and call them racists/bigots

    so you are not in favour of any discrimination but you have no issue with a ban on burqas? do i understand you correctly?


  • Options
    #328
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Really?
    Thats what (.........) history is filled with them.




    A - You're being silly


    B - You're being silly and just want to have the last word regardless.


  • Options
    #329
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so you are not in favour of any discrimination but you have no issue with a ban on burqas? do i understand you correctly?


    Im applying a rule to everyone.
    Regardless of sex, gender, age, religon or none.

    The antithesis of discrimination.

    Are you in favour of unfettered, unrestricted wearing of them.


  • Options
    #330
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Odhinn wrote: »
    A - You're being silly


    B - You're being silly and just want to have the last word regardless.

    Keep it up Odhinn, you dug a hole for yourself.
    Now maybe think about how you extricate yourself


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Im applying a rule to everyone.
    Regardless of sex, gender, age, religon or none.

    The antithesis of discrimination.

    but you also want to apply a rule that muslim women cannot wear them in public. Do i have that right? Either you do or you dont. its a pretty straightforward question.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Are you in favour of unfettered, unrestricted wearing of them.

    I have no issue with anybody wearing one that wants to wear one. why would I?


Advertisement