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…7891012

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


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

    The antithesis of discrimination.

    It isn't the antithesis of discrimination though. It's its own kind of discrimination.

    Some laws are likely to impact on certain groups more than others, even if the language itself appears to be neutral and non-discriminatory. It's called disparate impact discrimination, or, in Ireland, indirect discrimination.

    Whether it's the intention or not, there's no doubt that such a law would impact the muslim community disproportionately compared to other communities. So, advocates of such a law would have to argue that it is either the case that the law would not disproportionately affect muslims, or else argue that the disproportionate impact was justified for a particular reason.

    The argument is up there with the 'I wouldn't design a cake celebrating a same sex marriage for anybody, regardless of their sexual orientation' argument of a few years ago.


  • Options
    #333
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    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.

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

    Im very clear on the first question.

    Re "no issue" with them wearing them, do you share Odhins view they should be removed for security reasons, like a bank?


  • Options
    #334
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Im very clear on the first question.

    Re "no issue" with them wearing them, do you share Odhins view they should be removed for security reasons, like a bank?

    so you dont think muslim women should be allowed wear them in public yet somehow that is not discriminatory?


  • Options
    #335
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    osarusan wrote: »
    It isn't the antithesis of discrimination though. It's its own kind of discrimination.

    Some laws are likely to impact on certain groups more than others, even if the language itself appears to be neutral and non-discriminatory. It's called disparate impact discrimination, or, in Ireland, indirect discrimination.

    Whether it's the intention or not, there's no doubt that such a law would impact the muslim community disproportionately compared to other communities. So, advocates of such a law would have to argue that it is either the case that the law would not disproportionately affect muslims, or else argue that the disproportionate impact was justified for a particular reason.

    The argument is up there with the 'I wouldn't design a cake celebrating a same sex marriage for anybody, regardless of their sexual orientation' argument of a few years ago.

    Well thank god someone isnt shouting the racist card!

    True, some (e.g. Muslims) could be more affected than others. But inherent in that assumption, is anyone wearing one wants to wear one, or feels obliged to wear one, and also its important to note, the garment itself is discriminatory.

    However, the garmet is not mandatory for Muslins, its a choice at best (or worse
    compulsion). They're not prevented from practising their faith, and theres other garments that can express their faith (e.g hijab)

    You're "indirect discrimination" can be applied to security measures - and more arguably justified.
    But you're still "telling women what to wear", but just for a reason that you're ok with.

    But I think that that banning it would improve integration, communication, and having regard to what we're actually talking about, provide for those forced/obliged to wear it to not have to wear it, and send a signal to those who would have their "chattel" so enshrouded, "nope. Not here, we value women as much as men"
    I.e. other justifications, as well as public security.

    But again, at the risk of repeating myself. Is it discrimation if a Muslim country bans it?


    Not sure about the cake...seems to be self contradictory?


  • Options
    #336
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so you dont think muslim women should be allowed wear them in public yet somehow that is not discriminatory?

    Several Muslim countries have banned them.
    Are they also discriminating?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so you dont think muslim women should be allowed wear them in public yet somehow that is not discriminatory?

    & and what about the bank?


  • Options
    #338
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Several Muslim countries have banned them.
    Are they also discriminating?

    why do think muslims are incapable of discrimination?


  • Options
    #339
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    & and what about the bank?

    we have already covered that.


  • Options
    #340
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Banning FGM is discrimination because it mostly applies to the African minority. Some African countries also ban FGM because they are not incapable of discrimination.
    Am I doing this right?


  • Options
    #341
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    we have already covered that.

    Have "we"?
    Yet here you are again.

    So the answer you gave as a "yes", is actually a "no", when we tease it out a bit

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

    "Why would I" indeed!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Have "we"?
    Yet here you are again.

    So the answer you gave as a "yes", is actually a "no", when we tease it out a bit




    "Why would I" indeed!

    you really need to stop talking in riddles.


  • Options
    #343
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Cordell wrote: »
    Banning FGM is discrimination because it mostly applies to the African minority. Some African countries also ban FGM because they are not incapable of discrimination.
    Am I doing this right?

    well if you are attempting to post incredibly stupid stuff then you are doing A1. well done.


  • Options
    #344
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    why do think muslims are incapable of discrimination?

    As i said earlier, everyone sits somewhere on the tolerance spectrum.

    As to you question, having regard to certain Muslim cultures, particularly where the garment of OP is de rigueur , womens rights, gay rights, matrimonial rights, nonMuslim's rights, Patriarchal rights etc., your question isnt worthy of a response, and Im embarrassed for you even asking it.


  • Options
    #345
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Well thank god someone isnt shouting the racist card!

    True, some (e.g. Muslims) could be more affected than others. But inherent in that assumption, is anyone wearing one wants to wear one, or feels obliged to wear one, and also its important to note, the garment itself is discriminatory.

    However, the garmet is not mandatory for Muslins, its a choice at best (or worse
    compulsion). They're not prevented from practising their faith, and theres other garments that can express their faith (e.g hijab)

    You're "indirect discrimination" can be applied to security measures - and more arguably justified.
    But you're still "telling women what to wear", but just for a reason that you're ok with.

    But I think that that banning it would improve integration, communication, and having regard to what we're actually talking about, provide for those forced/obliged to wear it to not have to wear it, and send a signal to those who would have their "chattel" so enshrouded, "nope. Not here, we value women as much as men"
    I.e. other justifications, as well as public security.

    But again, at the risk of repeating myself. Is it discrimation if a Muslim country bans it?


    Not sure about the cake...seems to be self contradictory?


    Not a huge amount of that, such as what Muslim countries do, actually matters in terms of Irish law though.


    If you think it's justified in terms of improving integration, you'd need to make that case. Supporting evidence from other countries which have implemented such a ban might not be easy to find (or might be, I don't know). It could be the case that it's just as easy to argue that such a law would actually have the opposite effect on integration into society, as it might confine the women to a life indoors, away from non-related males, where the lack of a burqa would not be an issue.


    The garments themselves aren't always interchangeable either. A Salafist (or Wahabist) Muslim woman will most likely wear a burqa, and this cannot just be replaced with a hijab, for example, because the face, and entire body, must be covered.


    As you said, it'll be easier to justify a law that insists all customers show their faces in a place like a bank (or driving licence centre, for example). It would still disproportionately affect certain people (Salafist Muslim women, obviusly), but that could be justified by the fact that security, or establishing identity, is so important.


    I think it'd be much more difficult to justify the law in the case of, for example, a woman who is wearing a burqa sitting in a park reading a book.


  • Options
    #346
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you really need to stop talking in riddles.


    You're quick to request a "simple answer", not as quick to reciprocate.
    You were asked a simple question, after answering yours, yet I got a " we already coveted it".

    Seeing as I have been having a relatively enjoyable "cut and thrust " with Odhinn over the past few days, bereft of your contribution recently, you'll have to forgive me, if Im not as familiar with your previous utterances, as you seem to be assuming.


  • Options
    #347
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    osarusan wrote: »
    Not a huge amount of that, such as what Muslim countries do, actually matters in terms of Irish law though.

    If you think it's justified in terms of improving integration, you'd need to make that case. Supporting evidence from other countries which have implemented such a ban might not be easy to find (or might be, I don't know). It could be the case that it's just as easy to argue that such a law would actually have the opposite effect on integration into society, as it might confine the women to a life indoors, away from non-related males, where the lack of a burqa would not be an issue.

    The garments themselves aren't always interchangeable either. A Salafist (or Wahabist) Muslim woman will most likely wear a burqa, and this cannot just be replaced with a hijab, for example, because the face, and entire body, must be covered.

    As you said, it'll be easier to justify a law that insists all customers show their faces in a place like a bank (or driving licence centre, for example). It would still disproportionately affect certain people (Salafist Muslim women, obviusly), but that could be justified by the fact that security, or establishing identity, is so important.

    I think it'd be much more difficult to justify the law in the case of, for example, a woman who is wearing a burqa sitting in a park reading a book.

    I dont necessarily disagree with the gist of most of the above, and I appreciate the implications of a ban. However, i still think the potential benifet outweighs the negatives.

    Very little stats (none?) are available on the % of wearers who want to wear one, or how somehow feel coerced/obliged. A hijab however is a symbol of faith, and satisfies the requirement of many Muslims bar certain interpretations. But we're discussing a burka, and i dont think we can lose sight of what it means, and what it represents. And to listen to those Muslim women that would see it banned.

    In a bank, one can conduct most transactions now without having to show ones face. Airport, not so. But i find it interesting how ready people are to expect its removal in a bank, when its not reallyrequired. But its a reason they can get their head around. Unless to reveal identify to and to engage with someone, something that can arguably extended to the wider community.


  • Options
    #348
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Cordell


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    well if you are attempting to post incredibly stupid stuff then you are doing A1. well done.

    Let me put it this way: it's not discrimination against muslims, simply because they are the only ones doing this shyte. Some of them, not all of them, obviously.


  • Options
    #349
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Cordell wrote: »
    Let me put it this way: it's not discrimination against muslims, simply because they are the only ones doing this shyte. Some of them, not all of them, obviously.

    a ban on burqas in public is discrimination against muslims. you would have to be a complete thick to think otherwise.


  • Options
    #350
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Yeah, sure, if you're not a muslim you can wear one no problem.
    FFS


  • Options
    #351
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Cordell wrote: »
    Yeah, sure, if you're not a muslim you can wear one no problem.
    FFS

    are there a lot of non muslims that want to wear a burqa? or are you just throwing that in to make your point even more stupid?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Cordell


    You're trolling at this point.
    When a minority does something unacceptable and that thing is made legally unacceptable it is not discrimination.


  • Options
    #353
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Cordell wrote: »
    You're trolling at this point.
    When a minority does something unacceptable and that thing is made legally unacceptable it is not discrimination.

    what are they doing that is unacceptable? and unacceptable to who?


  • Options
    #354
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Cordell wrote: »
    When a minority does something unacceptable and that thing is made legally unacceptable it is not discrimination.
    Unacceptable to who?


    As I've already mentioned, I can see the argument for a law that insists people show their faces in certain places/situations/interactions - banks, driving licence centre, airport, court, police station, for example, because establishing identity is so important there.


    But I don't see much of a case to be made for a law that insists that (again, using my previous example) a woman sitting in a park reading a book while wearing a burqa.


    Or at least, I don't think you can argue that there is the same importance on establishing identity in such a situation, so I think a law forbidding it would need to be justified some other way, beyond simply saying it's 'unacceptable'.


  • Options
    #355
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    a ban on burqas in public is discrimination against muslims. you would have to be a complete thick to think otherwise.

    A Muslim ban on burkas is discrimination against Muslims...
    You really need to hone your arguement.
    I think I'd defer to Muslims on this.


    (& Take a leave out if Odhins book, even though i disagree with him, he's a lot more eloquent, and a lot less rude).


  • Options
    #356
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    osarusan wrote: »
    Unacceptable to who?

    As I've already mentioned, I can see the argument for a law that insists people show their faces in certain places/situations/interactions - banks, driving licence centre, airport, court, police station, for example, because establishing identity is so important there.

    But I don't see much of a case to be made for a law that insists that (again, using my previous example) a woman sitting in a park reading a book while wearing a burqa.

    Or at least, I don't think you can argue that there is the same importance on establishing identity in such a situation, so I think a law forbidding it would need to be justified some other way, beyond simply saying it's 'unacceptable'.

    We're not talking about a fedora though, or some other "benign" article of clothing. An article associated with intolerance, opression and subjugation of one sex. It is itself a discriminatory garment.

    The lady reading the book in the park might be wearing it willfully, but she might just as well feel she has to or would suffer some adverse consequence were she to go without. Considering womens reaction to it globally, there is merit in being positively disposed to a ban without being called a racist/bigot


  • Options
    #357
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    A Muslim ban on burkas is discrimination against Muslims...
    You really need to hone your arguement.
    I think I'd defer to Muslims on this.

    A ban on burqas by non-muslims is discrimination. a ban on the burqa by muslims can also be discriminations. there are many sects of islam. they dont seem to get along very well with each other.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    (& Take a leave out if Odhins book, even though i disagree with him, he's a lot more eloquent, and a lot less rude).

    i didnt realise they had made you a mod. if you have an issue with my posts then report them.


  • Options
    #358
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    A ban on burqas by non-muslims is discrimination. a ban on the burqa by muslims can also be discriminations. there are many sects of islam. they dont seem to get along very well with each other.

    Who more qualified to decide a ban on a Muslim garment is appropriate than those wearing it?

    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i didnt realise they had made you a mod. if you have an issue with my posts then report them.

    Probaly should, if you cant disport yourself appropriately. Its a pity posters lack the self awareness, and rely on moderation to be told they're rude.


  • Options
    #359
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Who more qualified to decide a ban on a Muslim garment is appropriate than those wearing it?




    Probaly should, if you cant disport yourself appropriately. Its a pity posters lack the self awareness, and rely on moderation to be told they're rude.

    fire away chief. i'm leaving you to your nonsense


  • Options
    #360
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    fire away chief. i'm leaving you to your nonsense

    Cheerio then.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Can we not all agree its the brits fault and leave it at that?


Advertisement