Saudi Arabia not observing the silence

[DannyInvincible]

Saudi Arabia's scumbaggery against Australia has been well documented; thankfully, they lost in the end, but are still second with two games to go, and they host Japan in what may be a winner-takes-all last round match.

I think it's worth trying to understand their motive rather than just dismissing it as simple "scumbaggery", as if the Saudi players were brazenly sympathising with ISIS or the London attackers. As far as I understand, honouring deaths in the manner of observing a minute's silence is considered to constitute a "bid'ah" (or heretical innovation) within Wahhabi doctrine (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/football/why-saudi-arabias-football-team-didnt-observe-a-minutes-silence-for-london-attack-victims/news-story/3ade0773ce6f730bbd301150f064fd3b).

Here (https://medium.com/weekend-caucus/in-defense-of-saudi-arabias-soccer-team-40fd08646f80)'s what was supposed to have happened:


The Australian association proposed the minute of silence for the two Australian victims of the London Bridge attack, and Saudi soccer officials agreed it should go forward. However, they added that their players would not take part as it is against Saudi custom.

FOXSPORTS was informed of the decision, presumably so they could keep their cameras on the Australian players and supporters, avoiding controversy. They did not.

The Saudis' reluctance to participate also got me thinking about how it must feel for those from the Arab world to encounter or observe such displays of remembrance in the Western world. Considering civilians are killed en masse on a near daily basis in the Arab world due to Western interference/bombings or attacks by local militias - many indeed propped up by Western governments - and such incidents are generally ignored without exception before Western sporting events, moments of selective solemnity and remembrance - such as that which occurred before this match in Australia for the victims of the London attacks - must appear to Arabs as profound displays of Western hypocrisy.

I suppose this affair just goes to demonstrate how even something as seemingly harmless and non-controversial as a minute's silence before a football game can carry so much political baggage.

[pineapple stu]

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/08/saudi-arabia-footballers-ignore-minutes-silence-for-london-attack-victims) noted that Saudi sporting teams have observed a minute's silence plenty of times before though. So it's not a cultural misunderstanding.

The article also says it was explained in advance to the Saudi officials, who flat out refused. There's an awful lot of stuff spouted about how we should respect middle-eastern culture, even the more backward elements of it, but that really needs to start being a two-way street.

A cynical me says that the fact the two Australians were female could have made it all the more unpalatable for the Saudis.

Anyways, in other news, Iceland beat Croatia with an 89th minute goal and go joint top of their group, with Turkey and Ukraine both just two points behind. Iceland have, in theory anyway, got the hardest match of the second series of games out of the way first though (as I guess have Croatia)

Montenegro are the second-placed team to miss out on the play-offs at present; we're second bottom, two points ahead. So we need to be careful of finishing second and not even making the play-offs.

[DannyInvincible]

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/08/saudi-arabia-footballers-ignore-minutes-silence-for-london-attack-victims) noted that Saudi sporting teams have observed a minute's silence plenty of times before though. So it's not a cultural misunderstanding.

The article also says it was explained in advance to the Saudi officials, who flat out refused. There's an awful lot of stuff spouted about how we should respect middle-eastern culture, even the more backward elements of it, but that really needs to start being a two-way street.

A cynical me says that the fact the two Australians were female could have made it all the more unpalatable for the Saudis.

The Guardian's reporting is misleading, according to Aaron Gordon of Vice Sports: https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/why-saudi-arabias-soccer-team-didnt-observe-moment-of-silence-for-london


Several websites, including the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/08/saudi-arabia-footballers-ignore-minutes-silence-for-london-attack-victims), have tried to demonstrate the Saudi's act as hypocritical by pointing out that moments of silence were in fact held for the death of former Saudi King Abdullah. However, those examples are misleading. Two were held in other countries—Qatar and the UAE, to be precise—which have different prevailing interpretations of Islam that allow for such silences. Also, none of those instances actually involved Saudis.

Another potential counterexample circulating is from a match between Saudi club Al Ahli Saudi and Barcelona (https://twitter.com/waeljabir/status/872829910284480512) last year in Doha. A moment of silence was held there as well. But, again, this is misleading. The image the Guardian published (https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/80651b8cfab8a8ae4cbc0f616fae8b943388e73a/0_14_3702_2222/master/3702.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&) is from just prior to the moment of silence being announced. Once it was, many of the Saudi players unhooked their arms, although they didn't disperse and kick the ball around as they did in Australia.

Here's video footage of the minute's silence before the game between Al-Ahli and Barcelona:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQPzOC5FYmk

Notice that many of the Al-Ahli players don't actually stand still. Some are chatting and others are stretching or warming up on the spot. Those standing still observing the silence are non-Saudi players, according to Wael Jabir (https://twitter.com/waeljabir/status/872829910284480512).


There's an awful lot of stuff spouted about how we should respect middle-eastern culture, even the more backward elements of it, but that really needs to start being a two-way street.

Out of interest, which backward elements are you referring to and who is saying those elements should be respected? Do you perceive people of Middle Eastern origin to be disrespecting you and/or the West as some sort of general front or collective group? They're not a homogenous monolith, but, if you do feel people of Middle Eastern origin are disrespecting you and/or the West as some sort of collective, in what ways do you feel they're being disrespectful or in what ways do you feel that you and/or the West have been disrespected? And couldn't someone from the Middle East very easily retort to your implicit accusation and request for "a two-way street of respect" that decades of interference, plundering and bloodshed in the Middle East at the hands of entire Western states is hardly very respectful?

[pineapple stu]

The Guardian's reporting is misleading, according to Aaron Gordon of Vice Sports: https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/why-saudi-arabias-soccer-team-didnt-observe-moment-of-silence-for-london



Here's video footage of the minute's silence before the game between Al-Ahli and Barcelona:



Notice that many of the Al-Ahli players don't actually stand still. Some are chatting and others are stretching or warming up on the spot. Those standing still observing the silence are non-Saudi players, according to Wael Jabir (https://twitter.com/waeljabir/status/872829910284480512).



Out of interest, which backward elements are you referring to and who is saying those elements should be respected? Do you perceive people of Middle Eastern origin to be disrespecting you and/or the West as some sort of general front or collective group? They're not a homogenous monolith, but, if you do feel people of Middle Eastern origin are disrespecting you and/or the West as some sort of collective, in what ways do you feel they're being disrespectful or in what ways do you feel that you and/or the West have been disrespected? And couldn't someone from the Middle East very easily retort to your implicit accusation and request for "a two-way street of respect" that decades of interference, plundering and bloodshed in the Middle East at the hands of entire Western states is hardly very respectful?

Interesting on the Guardian riposte bit. But it still doesn't really explain why they refused - and the Guardian is suggesting they did refuse, which they should at least be more correct on as it happened at the game.

There is no excuse whatsoever for refusing to a minute's silence. You've travelled to another country; it won't kill you to respect their culture for one minute. I still think it's scumbaggery.

The latter part of your post is going rather off topic, but - yes, I know the Middle East isn't one homogenous blob. In terms of backward elements, the obvious ones are the misogyny, the freedom of speech issues, the issues surrounding certain groups of people (apostates and homosexuals in particular), and the view of sharia law as being above national law. Imams here have been saying Irish schools should have Muslim-friendly facilities - strictly gender-segregated facilities and teachers, or for example - or that they are prepared to sue blasphemers of Mohammed, or that the question of the death penalty for homosexuals "is a difficult one" - all of which disrespects our culture. (Having a daft blasphemy law does not override our culture of free speech) All a bit hypocritical given that you're expected to very strictly adhere to their culture when you go over there (in, for example, dress, hotel room bookings, admission to certain buildings/areas)

I agree entirely on your point on western action in the Middle East, but it's not really relevant here. And, before it comes in, I also think the minute's silence is way overdone these days - but the bottom line is you're playing a match in Australia, the hosts ask for a minute's silence for two Australians who died in a terrorist attack, it's not too much to ask that you respect that request. And I'd expect Australia to respect a show of support for a similar incident in Saudi Arabia. This "We didn't know" stuff is nonsense.

Anyways, not saying any more on that as it's not the thread for it at all.

The US picked up a point last night against Mexico, and with their nearest two rivals at home, they should go through, much and all as it would be quite fun to see them at home.

[geysir]

Interesting on the Guardian riposte bit. But it still doesn't really explain why they refused - and the Guardian is suggesting they did refuse, which they should at least be more correct on as it happened at the game.

There is no excuse whatsoever for refusing to a minute's silence. You've travelled to another country; it won't kill you to respect their culture for one minute. I still think it's scumbaggery.
.
To label it scumbaggery is quite frankly ignorant, disrespectful and disingenuous, as you could have made an effort to find out why.
The Saudis might have made an error of judgement which the Saudi FA freely and unreservedly apologise for, but the action of the players was not due to reasons of a scumbag nature.

[DannyInvincible]

Interesting on the Guardian riposte bit. But it still doesn't really explain why they refused - and the Guardian is suggesting they did refuse, which they should at least be more correct on as it happened at the game.

There is no excuse whatsoever for refusing to a minute's silence. You've travelled to another country; it won't kill you to respect their culture for one minute. I still think it's scumbaggery.

...

And, before it comes in, I also think the minute's silence is way overdone these days - but the bottom line is you're playing a match in Australia, the hosts ask for a minute's silence for two Australians who died in a terrorist attack, it's not too much to ask that you respect that request. And I'd expect Australia to respect a show of support for a similar incident in Saudi Arabia. This "We didn't know" stuff is nonsense.

Are you applying the standards you evidently expect of others to yourself? I'm not so sure you are. For someone so keen on demanding respect for your own culture, you seem very unwilling to try and understand the culture and customs of others. And whilst you profess to be keen on upholding and safeguarding "Western values" or notions of liberty and free expression, in reality, you sound surprisingly dictatorial, illiberal and intolerant, for isn't free expression the freedom to opt out of a minute's silence if one wishes to do so? Does your version of "free speech" not apply to Saudis or what?

As Noam Chomsky once said (http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0104810/quotes):


"Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favour of free speech, then you’re in favour of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

Nobody claimed "[they] didn't know". I'm not sure if you've missed it or are wilfully ignoring it, but the explanation for the Saudis' non-participation was outlined above in post #89 (http://foot.ie/threads/198943-2018-World-Cup?p=1924477&viewfull=1#post1924477).

It had been made known to the Saudi association by the Australian association that the Australian association wished to hold a minute's silence before the game. The Saudi association agreed that the minute's silence could go ahead (thus, they were respecting the Australians' declared wishes), but the Saudi association also made it known that their players could not participate in the observance as it would be against Saudi custom to do so.

More specifically, it would have been contrary to Saudi custom because honouring the dead in the manner of a minute's silence is considered to constitute what is known as a "bid'ah" or a heretical innovation within Wahhabism, the doctrine of Islam that is dominant in Saudi Arabia. The performance of anything deemed a heretical innovation is regarded as impermissible by scholars and adherents of Wahhabism. That's the explanation/reason/"excuse" for the Saudis' reluctance to participate; it had nothing to do with "scumbaggery" or a desire to offend Australians or Westerners.

Furthermore, the television channel broadcasting the game was informed that the Saudi players would not be taking part in the minute's silence before the game, presumably in the hope that they would keep their cameras focused on the Australian players and avoid needless controversy, but they didn't do so for whatever reason. As a result of them broadcasting images of the Saudi players in their own-half positions awaiting kick-off whilst the Australian players observed a minute's silence, people got outraged without attempting to understand or inform themselves of what had actually happened. Dubbing it "scumbaggery" is just cultural insensitivity grounded in total ignorance. You can hardly denounce alleged cultural insensitivity on the part of others whilst being guilty of that very thing yourself. That's just hypocrisy. Would you expect a Protestant, Muslim or Jew to say a decade of the Rosary at a Catholic funeral, for example? Would you call them a "scumbag" if they opted out of it?


The latter part of your post is going rather off topic, but - yes, I know the Middle East isn't one homogenous blob. In terms of backward elements, the obvious ones are the misogyny, the freedom of speech issues, the issues surrounding certain groups of people (apostates and homosexuals in particular), and the view of sharia law as being above national law. Imams here have been saying Irish schools should have Muslim-friendly facilities - strictly gender-segregated facilities and teachers, or for example - or that they are prepared to sue blasphemers of Mohammed, or that the question of the death penalty for homosexuals "is a difficult one" - all of which disrespects our culture. (Having a daft blasphemy law does not override our culture of free speech) All a bit hypocritical given that you're expected to very strictly adhere to their culture when you go over there (in, for example, dress, hotel room bookings, admission to certain buildings/areas)

You decided, on account of apparent ignorance of the facts and in spite of being provided an explanation in a post above, to accuse Saudi Arabian footballers of "scumbaggery" due to their non-participation in a minute's silence and then decided to cast further crude aspersions upon people from the Middle East (by implying that they're generally not paying us Westerners the same level of respect that we supposedly afford them). I'm just pulling you up on something you chose to introduce to the discussion. Why you chose to mention it, I have no idea, but I didn't steer things off-topic.

I think your position relies on rather sweeping generalisations and some convenient selectivity. As I've said, we're not two homogeneous monoliths, but we in the West have social taboos; they in the Middle East have social taboos. We have laws to which people are expected to adhere when here; they have laws to which people are expected to adhere when there. The Middle East is a diverse place and the people from it are a diverse set of people. The same applies to the West. Disrespect is something of which all humans are capable; it is not a trait exclusive to those from the Middle East when they encounter or engage with Western culture. People from the Middle East can be guilty of disrespect and people from the West can be equally guilty of disrespect. Islamophobia, racism and religious intolerance are rife in the West, for example. It's hardly as if all Westerners adhere to the laws, customs and social norms of the West when in the West, nor is it even as if all norms and laws in the West are what we might regard as progressive in nature either. And millions of people from the Middle East are entirely respectful and tolerant of Western culture. Indeed, millions participate in it, contribute to it and add richness to it.

Would you say our blasphemy law disrespects our own culture? In your opinion, what does that say for the constitution that demands it or what does that say for those who legislated for it? What does their legislating for it say for the Irish electorate who elected them?


I agree entirely on your point on western action in the Middle East, but it's not really relevant here.

People of the Middle East would beg to differ. They see another side of "Western values"; a much darker side. Why wouldn't that be relevant? It isn't happening in isolation. It's conduct perpetrated by Westerners in the Middle East and it's very real for those at the suffering end of it. You feel fully entitled to accuse people from the Middle East of disrespecting your culture and cite the desire of unspecified imams for Muslim-friendly facilities in Irish schools as an example of that, but if someone from the Middle East was to complain of Western bombs wiping out entire families and communities in the Middle East, you'd tell them their grievance had no place in a discussion about inter-cultural disrespect, seemingly because it doesn't suit your specious and biased narrative of "disrespect being one-way traffic"? You can't be serious. That's just mind-boggling. You think disrespect is only relevant if you're the one who perceives or experiences it? Why should those from the Middle East be denied that very basic privilege you take for granted yourself; to simply be able to say what makes them feel disrespected?

[pineapple stu]

Danny, I know you're foot.ie's verbiage king, but there's times when less is more. Seriously. You've so many tangents in that it'd take me all day to reply to everything. Which I'm not going to do obviously.

To pick some of the main points -

Yes, the west's actions in the Middle East is of no relevance to this situation. There's not that many bombs being dropped by Australia, or on Saudi Arabia, so in the context of a match between Australia and Saudi Arabia, your point is irrelevant. Unless you're conflating Australia with West and Saudi Arabia as the Middle East? Your entire last paragraph has all the focus and relevance to the immediate point of a college student who's just discovered anarchy (And as a side note, incidentally, Saudi Arabia are dropping plenty of bombs in the Middle East themselves lately, but you seem happy to make out that the west are the sole aggressors)

Your series of questions on blasphemy are daft. What's the point you're trying to make there, seriously? Look at the reaction to Stephen Fry's charge of blasphemy - mirth, embarrassment, charges quietly dropped - and tell me it's in any way in our culture.

You didn't ask for the name of the imam, incidentally, but I was referring to Ali Selim.

Getting more towards the point though, a decade of the rosary is in no way comparable to a minute's silence; it's an overtly religious act. A minute's silence is not; it's a cross-cultural gesture. Indeed, the article you quote actually hints at this difference, when suggesting that actually the Saudi players were disrespectful, and that they could easily have compromised by offering a generic prayer themselves. By kicking a ball around instead, they were being actively, if discreetly, disrespectful. It obviously isn't the first time the Saudi federation have come across a minute's silence before, and a Plan B surely has to have been considered. If Plan B was "**** them; not our culture", when there's other potential options, then yes, that is disrespecful. This idea that "not in our culture" can be a valid reason for disrespect is a particularly dangerous one too. (And let's be honest, neither Wahhabi Islam nor Saudi culture, if there is even much of a difference, are not cultures that anyone should want to see spread. If that's against free speech, then so be it. But it's a simple truth)

As a point of clarification, I didn't accuse the footballers themselves of scumbaggery. In a lot of instances like this, it's more likely to be the officials calling the shots, and it can be very hard for a player to make a stand against a federation official and keep his career intact.

I get the feeling I could construct a liberal "Bull**** bingo" card from your post tbh.

[DannyInvincible]

Yes, the west's actions in the Middle East is of no relevance to this situation. There's not that many bombs being dropped by Australia, or on Saudi Arabia, so in the context of a match between Australia and Saudi Arabia, your point is irrelevant.

I think you'll find that it was yourself - and not me - who introduced to the discussion this "West-Middle East" dichotomy that you're now, for whatever reason, trying to dismiss as "irrelevant" (presumably so as to conveniently avoid dealing with my counter-points). You'd complained that there was an "awful lot of stuff spouted about how we should respect middle-eastern culture, even the more backward elements of it, but that really needs to start being a two-way street"? I assumed by "we" that you meant Westerners (seeing as we're not Australians). Was my assumption incorrect?

I picked up on your statement to challenge it as I thought it was a pretty rash, ill-considered and disparaging generalisation worthy of closer scrutiny. Why did you bring it up in the first place if you were only going to then dismiss it as "irrelevant" when later confronted on it?

For what it's worth, Operation Okra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Okra) is Australia's contribution to airborne Western military intervention in the Middle East. Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_operations_involving_Australia)'s a list of other military operations in which Australia is or has been involved in the Middle East (and elsewhere).

Anyway, even if you wished to limit discussion to Saudi Arabia alone (although that evidently wasn't the case judging by your words), of course historical and contemporary Western foreign policy in the Middle East would still be relevant. To suggest otherwise is simply to display further ignorance on the matter. John Pilger's brief summary of Western foreign policy in the Middle East in a recent piece on the Manchester Arena attack for Counter Punch (https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/31/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know/) provides some wider contextual framework for the discussion you decided to initiate.


The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain’s biggest weapons customer.

This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Arabism): Arab states developing a modern [socialist-influenced] secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest.

Extremist Islamism is a modern construct springing from a history of brutal colonialism and military adventurism by the West in the Middle East. Who overthrew secular governments in Iran and Iraq? Answer: the US and Britain. Contrast the rigid and zealous versions of Islam exhibited by Saudi Arabia and ISIS with the much greater degrees of tolerance for diversity and secular or moderate thought found in majority-Muslim countries (or regions) like Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Senegal, Gabon, Sierra Leone, Gambia, Comoros, Turkey, northern Cyprus, Kurdistan, Morocco, Tunisia and even Palestine or Lebanon at the Levant's Mediterranean edge. The rise of draconian forms of Islamism in the Middle East is actually a very modern (post-colonial) phenomenon (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/modernity-sharia-nation-state-201471011222927143.html) even though, as Hasan Azad says, it tends to strike us as the very antithesis of modernity.


First of all, it is crucial to ask ourselves what it is that we understand by modernity. We assume that modernity means "reason", "science", "freedom", "justice", "racial, gender, and sexual equality". These are the assumptions. They are the ideals that are projected by a strident Western discourse, where the West is seen as their progenitor and purveyor.

Perhaps it will strike the reader as a little odd if I say that these ideals are far from being realised within the West. That there are massive inequalities of sexualities, of genders and of races in the West. That Western freedom, whether political, economic (https://www.amazon.com/Imperialism-Global-Political-Economy-Callinicos/dp/074564046X/ref=la_B000APKZBO_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404229570&sr=1-3) or consumerist (https://www.amazon.com/Collateral-Damage-Social-Inequalities-Global-ebook/dp/B00CGGXFV2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404229778&sr=8-1&keywords=Collateral+Damage%3A+Social+Inequalities+ in+a+Global+Age), comes at the expense of the freedom of people living in non-Western countries.

And this lack of freedom runs far and deep, reaching into the history of how non-European people were made to think during colonial times.

This (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/charlie-hebdo-islamophobiapressfreedomhatespeech.html) is another piece of relevance on the uneasy relationship between "free speech" and Islam.


In his 2003 book, “Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern,” English political philosopher John Gray claimed that Islamic extremism is a modern phenomenon, a modern illness. It is unfair and dishonest to view a religion with such a vast population, one that has existed for more than 1,500 years, as an unstable component that has not been affected by the sociopolitical circumstances surrounding the rise of extremism or Western interventionism in the Muslim world.

Conducting a long-term war in the Middle East to supposedly end terrorism — while killing Muslims, many of them civilians — only legitimizes the defense of the people being pillaged. It’s a privilege to disregard this key sociopolitical context. Figures such as Maher, Murray and Hirsi Ali are obsessed with facts, and yet they somehow very conveniently ignore the effects of colonialism and imperialism in the Islamic world and the extremism that has come as a direct result of it. They are new atheists, new polemicists, with bullying bravado who have theorized their hatred by decontextualizing information to make a case against a mythology that we are now accepting. This is not scholarship; this is a war of attrition on a religion, based on half-truths to justify U.S. interventionism. Pundits such as Maher and Hirsi Ali openly incite violence, claiming freedom of speech, but Muslims are held to a different standard. This effort to normalize racism and Islamophobia is Orientalism at its finest.

Mehdi Hasan's piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html) on Western hypocrisy when it comes to "free speech" - written in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack - is also pertinent.


And why have you been so silent on the glaring double standards? Did you not know that Charlie Hebdo sacked the veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark? Were you not aware that Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet in 2005, reportedly rejected cartoons mocking Christ because they would “provoke an outcry” and proudly declared it would “in no circumstances... publish Holocaust cartoons”? Muslims, I guess, are expected to have thicker skins than their Christian and Jewish brethren. Context matters, too. You ask us to laugh at a cartoon of the Prophet while ignoring the vilification of Islam across the continent (have you visited Germany lately?) and the widespread discrimination against Muslims in education, employment and public life - especially in France. You ask Muslims to denounce a handful of extremists as an existential threat to free speech while turning a blind eye to the much bigger threat to it posed by our elected leaders.

Does it not bother you to see Barack Obama - who demanded that Yemen keep the anti-drone journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye behind bars, after he was convicted on “terrorism-related charges” in a kangaroo court - jump on the free speech ban wagon? Weren’t you sickened to see Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of a country that was responsible for the killing of seven journalists in Gaza in 2014, attend the “unity rally” in Paris? Bibi was joined by Angela Merkel, chancellor of a country where Holocaust denial is punishable by up to five years in prison, and David Cameron, who wants to ban non-violent “extremists” committed to the “overthrow of democracy” from appearing on television.

Then there are your readers. Will you have a word with them, please? According to a 2011 YouGov poll, 82% of voters backed the prosecution of protesters who set fire to poppies. Apparently, it isn’t just Muslims who get offended.

There's some further information to chew on in this (http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news-comment/2615-unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-since-1990#.WUkFO556G9E.twitter) piece; it discusses landmark research which has found that, since 1990, Western military intervention in the Middle East has led to the deaths of four million Muslims. I don't know about you, but that, to me, demonstrates a rather disturbing and sociopathic lack of respect for the region and its people on the part of Western powers. You don't think that impacts negatively upon general relations, attitudes and mutual feelings of appreciation, consideration or regard?

[DannyInvincible]

And as a side note, incidentally, Saudi Arabia are dropping plenty of bombs in the Middle East themselves lately, but you seem happy to make out that the west are the sole aggressors

Not at all. I'm well aware of Saudi's belligerent activities in Yemen, but we also both know who's been happily arming them to the teeth (and the historical context is outlined in my previous post). Anyway, I was simply disputing your insinuation that inter-cultural disrespect between the Middle East and the West was one-way traffic emanating from the Middle East. The reality is a lot more complex.


Getting more towards the point though, a decade of the rosary is in no way comparable to a minute's silence; it's an overtly religious act. A minute's silence is not; it's a cross-cultural gesture. Indeed, the article you quote actually hints at this difference, when suggesting that actually the Saudi players were disrespectful, and that they could easily have compromised by offering a generic prayer themselves. By kicking a ball around instead, they were being actively, if discreetly, disrespectful. It obviously isn't the first time the Saudi federation have come across a minute's silence before, and a Plan B surely has to have been considered. If Plan B was "**** them; not our culture", when there's other potential options, then yes, that is disrespecful. This idea that "not in our culture" can be a valid reason for disrespect is a particularly dangerous one too. (And let's be honest, neither Wahhabi Islam nor Saudi culture, if there is even much of a difference, are not cultures that anyone should want to see spread. If that's against free speech, then so be it. But it's a simple truth)

I still think it's rather absurd to be (purportedly) championing free expression one minute but then the next minute saying it shouldn't actually apply to the Saudi team in this instance and that they should have done this or that instead. That's dictation; not free speech.

For the Saudi players, a minute's silence obviously wasn't a cross-cultural gesture and had connotations that are explicitly frowned upon within their faith, so it might as well have been an overtly religious act, as far as they were concerned.


This idea that "not in our culture" can be a valid reason for disrespect is a particularly dangerous one too.

That's a heavily loaded statement. You've simply assumed that they were intent on causing disrespect. Why do you assume they were intent on offending? If they were to engage in something regarded within the reading of Islam to which they adhere as a "reprehensible act" (https://islamqa.info/en/120181), they'd have been disrespecting themselves and their own faith. Can you not even begin to comprehend that? You seem to be demanding respect from them on your terms but have no intention whatsoever of respecting their personal and cultural hang-ups or of considering their terms of engagement. That just seems like outright hypocrisy on your part.

And don't you effectively retort with "not in our culture" to the likes of Ali Selim? Maybe Ali Selim would feel disrespected if you told him that accommodations, allowances or rights he might desire for Irish Muslims and Muslims in Ireland (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/muslims-in-ireland-seek-integration-not-assimilation-1.1917937), but with which you possibly take issue, were "not in our culture" (as you indeed suggested up above). How do you reconcile that with refusing the Saudi players such an appeal when they (or their association) opted not to participate in a minute's silence? At least try and be consistent.

You claim to acknowledge that respect is a two-way thing, but that entails an effort to understand on your part too. I'm afraid you appear to be showing very little of it in this instance. You spoke (rather generally) of potential hypocrisy on the part of Muslims, such as Ali Selim presumably, in terms of how they allegedly expect Westerners to behave etiquette-wise in majority-Muslim countries (not that all majority-Muslim countries are strictly dogmatic or theological anyway); I'm not sure what his feelings on that are specifically, but if he or others are indeed guilty of hypocrisy, does that justify hypocrisy or intolerance on our part in the West? I don't think it does. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Just out of interest, do you support France's ban on the wearing of the niqab and burqa in public places under the premise that it's supposedly "not in keeping with French or Western culture"? Would you advocate such a ban in Ireland?

[pineapple stu]

Jesus tapdancing Christ Danny. Brevity! Seriously.

I'm not going to go into all the above; if you want to think that means you win the internet, that's fine.

I'll allow my comments on "Not in our culture" need a bit of clarification. If the match had been in Saudi Arabia and Australia had requested a minute's silence, then Saudi Arabia would be entitled to refuse it on cultural grounds. But the match was made in Australia, and so the least I would expect is for Saudi Arabia to respect the request, which they clearly didn't do.

Similarly, Ali Selim has no right to come to Ireland and call for Irish schools to impose foreign cultural norms, especially ones so out of keeping with Irish culture. And similarly, I have no right to go to, say, Saudi Arabia and demand mixed schools and grace before lunch.

Respecting your host is the key in my view. I don't see that that's a particularly big deal. And I don't see anything inconsistent in the above.

On your last point, because it stands out as not stuck in the middle of your essay, yes, I support the French bans (and other countries have banned them too). They're a significant barrier to integration, and the misogyny which they indicate (let's not start pretending it's about modesty; it's about gender control, pure and simple) has no place in any modern western culture. Those who want to move to France, for example, should be prepared to respect its culture. If they're not prepared to do that, then they shouldn't move there in the first place.

[DannyInvincible]

I had meant to reply to this before now, but haven't been on the forum a huge deal over the past few weeks, so just getting a proper chance now.


But the match was made in Australia, and so the least I would expect is for Saudi Arabia to respect the request, which they clearly didn't do.

So you keep saying, but you clearly misinterpreted the incident/situation, perhaps wilfully so on account of your evident hostility and antagonism when it comes to your view of the Middle East, its people and their customs. To re-clarify, the following was part of the statement (http://www.the42.ie/saudi-arabia-minutes-silence-3433911-Jun2017/) made by the Australian association after the incident caught the attention of the wider media and public:


"The FFA sought agreement from the Asian Football Confederation and the Saudi national team to hold a minute’s silence in memory of those lost in Saturday night’s terror attacks in London and in particular the two Australian women.

Both the AFC and the Saudi team agreed that the minute of silence could be held.

The FFA was further advised by Saudi team officials that this tradition was not in keeping with Saudi culture and they would move to their side of the field and respect our custom whilst taking their own positions on the field."

The FFA were evidently satisfied then that their intentions had been respected. They explicitly stated that the request and custom were respected after having consulted with both the AFC and Saudi association. That the minute's silence went ahead after the FFA sought and received the approval of the Saudi association is proof in itself of this fact.


Similarly, Ali Selim has no right to come to Ireland and call for Irish schools to impose foreign cultural norms, especially ones so out of keeping with Irish culture. And similarly, I have no right to go to, say, Saudi Arabia and demand mixed schools and grace before lunch.

Respecting your host is the key in my view. I don't see that that's a particularly big deal. And I don't see anything inconsistent in the above.

You're very prone to crudely othering Muslims and constructing a dubious demarcation between conceptions of "us" and "them". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is down to a failure on your part to think a bit more seriously about the logical conclusion of what you're actually saying rather than any desire to actually insult an entire swathe of your fellow Irish citizens and residents of Ireland. If you think what you're saying isn't that big a deal, I'd genuinely encourage you to think a bit deeper about it beyond your over-simplistic narrative.

Ali Selim doesn't represent "foreign" interests. He represents both Muslim Irish nationals and Muslims resident in Ireland who regard Ireland as home; these people have a stake in Irish society and are contributing to Irish society and the economy in their thousands. Ireland is their home. We share this country with them. It's their country too. (Selim may even be an Irish national himself?)

Are you saying then that Muslims can't be properly Irish or can't contribute to Irishness and Irish culture in their own particular way? Plenty of Muslim Irish nationals will even be converts to the faith who've been born in Ireland to parents born in Ireland with no roots whatsoever in the Middle East. How does what you say about "respecting your host" apply to them? Muslims have been participating in and contributing to Irish society and life since before you were born. Aren't Muslim Irish nationals entitled to expect the Irish state to look out for and consider their interests and concerns (just as you'd expect it to look out for you), considering they are Irish citizens (just like yourself), after all?

What you may or may not have the right to do in certain parts of the Middle East is a red herring, although, as we've covered, it's not as if Westerners haven't been interfering with and imposing their will upon the Middle East over the last century on a much grander scale to supposed Islamic or Middle Eastern influence in the West.

Besides, hasn't Selim simply been asking for an accommodation of the sensitivities of Muslim pupils and their parents? To portray it as if he's demanding that certain Islamic cultural norms be imposed upon Irish non-Muslim children is a grossly misleading straw man and a rather unfair characterisation of the man. It's scaremongering really and it's the sort of disingenuous moral-panic-style nonsense in which you'd find the likes of the BNP, EDL or Britain First engaging in the UK in order to unfairly portray Muslims generally as unreasonable, disrespectful and threatening to the dominant culture or the culture of (purportedly Christian) white Britons.

How do you reconcile your purported advocacy of free speech up-thread with your immediate comments that seemingly seek to deny Selim and other Irish Muslims their voice here? You purported belief in free speech is, yet again, exposed to be rather hollow. Ireland is a democracy. They're entitled to make appeals in accordance with their interests (so long as they don't break the law), just like anyone else.

Can you elaborate a bit more on the characteristics that would be in keeping with the Irish culture that you purportedly seek to preserve against the "imposition of foreign cultural norms"? Is it white and Catholic or what? You're aware that Christianity originated in the Middle East too, right? Does it include rituals like grace before lunch? There are plenty of non-Muslim Irish citizens who would have no time for the idea of a universal grace before lunch. I'd be one of them.

[DannyInvincible]

On your last point, because it stands out as not stuck in the middle of your essay, yes, I support the French bans (and other countries have banned them too). They're a significant barrier to integration, and the misogyny which they indicate (let's not start pretending it's about modesty; it's about gender control, pure and simple) has no place in any modern western culture.

That just comes across as more paternalistic ignorance, to be honest, and I get the sense that you're confusing the concept of integration, which is actually a bilateral process, with the concept of assimilation, which is a one-way process and which appears to be what you really desire of Muslims. In what ways specifically do the niqab or burqa pose a "significant barrier to integration"? Having lived in Manchester for a few years, the veil was a frequent sight in the city centre streets and shops and those women who wear it get on with their daily business without a problem (and without a man by their side, I might add).

This on the broader concept of integration is insightful: http://idealmuslimah.com/rss-feed-news/209-dawah/the-face-veil-niqaab/3353-the-niqab-a-barrier-to-integration.html


"Integration is a two-way process: it requires adaptation on the part of the newcomer but also by the host society. Successful integration can only take place if the host society provides access to jobs and services, and acceptance of the immigrants in social interaction. Above all, integration in a democracy presupposes acquisition of legal and political rights by the new members of society, so that they can become equal partners. Indeed, it is possible to argue that, in a multicultural society, integration may be understood as a process through which the whole population acquires civil, social, political, human and cultural rights, which creates the conditions for greater equality. In this approach, integration can also mean that minority groups should be supported in maintaining their cultural and social identities, since the right to cultural choices is intrinsic to democracy."

This too:


"Castles et al helpfully contribute to the discourse by setting out a list of criteria against which the degree of integration can be measured – a sort of checklist of indicators that determine the extent of integration with indicators of education, training and employment; social integration; health, legal , political and overall integration. The irony is that there may be women wearing the veil who may tick all the boxes by being educated, working in the public and services sector, voting and being good neighbours, yet be considered not to have integrated because of the niqab. Furthermore, if the veil is an obstacle to integration, the implied meaning by those who use this word loosely is that they will not be able to integrate at all, whilst in the academic sense of the word they may be more integrated into the workings of British society than many thousands of young white working class English (the so-called ‘Chavs’) whose integration may never been questioned on the basis of their appearance. For a politician to assert that Muslim women are not integrated because they wear the niqab and do not converse with male strangers on a street is somewhat of an over-simplification to say the least."

Numerous Muslim women choose to wear such dress of their own volition because they believe it to be Allah's injunction (rather than their husband's or any man's). They're not necessarily under any duress to do so. Are they also excluded from enjoying the benefits of your frankly farcical and hypocritical conception of "free speech/expression"? Why not let them express themselves, speak for themselves and stop assuming their intentions?

Here are the words of niqab-wearer Sahar Al Faifi: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-wear-the-niqab-let-me-speak-on-my-own-behalf-8824243.html


"I started wearing the niqab at a the age of 14, although my parents discouraged me. I was motivated by a deep belief that this was the right decision for me and that hasn't changed in the intervening years since.

The common impression that many people have about those that wear the niqab is that we are oppressed, uneducated, passive, kept behind closed doors and not integrated within British society. The terms used in the press often reflect this, as do some politicians statements. Jeremy Browne MP is a case in point with his call for a national debate about whether the state should step in to “protect” young women from having the veil “imposed” on them. Sarah Wollaston MP finds the niqab “deeply offensive”. Enter the Prime Minister and commentators across the political spectrum ready to discuss us.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a proud Welsh and British citizen, a molecular geneticist by profession and an activist in my spare time. I have formerly been elected as the Wales Chairperson of a national Muslim student organisation and held other leadership roles including working with bodies such as the National Union of Students. I wear the niqab as a personal act of worship, and I deeply believe that it brings me closer to God, the Creator. I find the niqab liberating and dignifying; it gives me a sense of strength. People I engage with judge me for my intellect and action; not necessarily for the way I look or dress. Niqab enables me to be, simply, human."

Hamza Yusuf's words are also worthy of consideration: https://sandala.org/pourquoi-no-burqa/


"While I am personally opposed to the face veil, it is a legitimate, if minority opinion, in the Islamic legal tradition for a woman to wear one. Most women who wear it believe they are following God’s injunction and not their husband’s. French laicism seems as fundamentalist as the very religious fanatics it wants to keep out. On a trip to France a few years ago, I was shocked to see pornography openly displayed on the streets in large advertisements. How odd that to unveil a woman for all to gape at is civilized, but for her to cover up to ward off gazes is a crime... While the French Prime Minister sees no problem with exposing in public places a woman’s glorious nakedness, he is oddly and quite rabidly disturbed by allowing others to cover it up. The sooner secular nations learn to allow people of faith to live their lives in peace, the sooner peace will flourish."
It's odd to hear you complain about and denounce alleged misogyny and gender control whilst at the same time engaging in that very thing yourself by attempting to speak for Muslim women, denying them their voice and dictating to them or insisting on what they should or shouldn't wear. It's totally hypocritical. Why do you feel entitled to view parts of their body they don't want you to see?

Do you feel similarly about non-Muslim women; that they should uncover or dress themselves to suit your preferences? If not, why are they exempt from your curious and intrusive obsession?

In case you haven't noticed, dress-codes aren't unique to the Muslim world either. Islamic veils don't necessarily indicate misogyny or gender control any more than Western dress-codes indicate misogyny or gender control. Do you apply the same argument to Western clothing etiquette for women? Do you feel Western conventions also indicate misogyny or gender control? It wouldn't be regarded as appropriate for a Western woman to walk around in public in the nude - she might even face arrest - so let's not get too smug and pretend Western women here are at liberty to dress or undress however they wish without being shamed, disparaged or criminalised.

In your opinion, does the attire of nuns have a place in modern Western culture? If so, why do you treat such dress differently?


Those who want to move to France, for example, should be prepared to respect its culture. If they're not prepared to do that, then they shouldn't move there in the first place.

Not all migrants and refugees enjoy the luxury many of us in the EU or the West may have to just get up and decide to move wherever they want with relative practical and political ease. Most abandon their homeland out of economic necessity (much harsher than most contemporary Westerners will ever have experienced) or in desperation to avoid conflict and political upheaval (often brought upon them by Western warmongering and military interference in the first place).

Anyway, why would wearing a veil have to be seen as "disrespecting French culture"? And what about French nationals who've been born in France yet decide to wear a veil? They didn't decide to "move there". France has been their home since the moment of their birth. Perhaps they're already "integrated" yet decide to wear the veil. There's genuinely something rather absurd and self-entitled - obscene with a whiff of racist supremacism even - about a non-Muslim Irishman assuming the right and attempting to dictate to a specific subset of French nationals who are Muslim what is and isn't their national culture. It's been a genuine surprise to me to see you engaging in it.

I posted this before in the Brexit thread, but, as I said there, it's a powerful and thought-provoking article by Dina Nayeri, a former asylum seeker (who left Iran aged eight and who, on top of holding both US and EU citizenship, is now a teacher of American literature in London) on the nativist disdain for the "ungrateful refugee", the nativist compulsion to control immigrants and the suspicious notion that immigrants should shed their old identities or owe some eternal and unconditional duty or gratitude to their native hosts: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/dina-nayeri-ungrateful-refugee

I'd appeal to you to read it. It might provide some food for thought.

[DannyInvincible]

And just to add a bit more to what I was discussing in post #8 (http://foot.ie/threads/223094-Saudi-Arabia-not-observing-the-silence?p=1925487&viewfull=1#post1925487) up-thread in relation to Western military intervention in the Middle East, how it has led to the deaths of four million Muslims and how it has impacted negatively upon mutual relations...

Western military adventurism and conquest in the Middle East - which has enforced poverty, bred great social upheaval and stunted material, economic and intellectual development - generates extreme resentment and socio-political grievances in the region. Such conditions are ideal breeding ground for Islamist ideologies. It's simple cause and effect. There has been a polarisation and subsequent entrenchment of conflicting politics and two different cultures which feeds into this sense of a clash of civilisations.

Jonathan Cook described (http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2017-06-04/why-the-london-terror-attack-occurred-now/) the impasse in the following terms in an article about the London attacks back in June:


The Islamic terrorists of our time believe in a violent, zero-sum clash of civilisations. That should not be surprising, as their ideology mirrors the dominant ideology – neo-conservatism – of western foreign policy establishments. Both sides are locked in a terrifying dance of death. Both believe that two “civilisations” exist and are incompatible, that they are in a fight to the death, and that any measures are justified to achieve victory because the struggle is existential. We use drones and “humanitarian intervention” to destabilise their societies; they use cars, guns, knives and bombs to destabilise ours.

The dance chiefly takes place because both sides continue it. And it will not be easy to break free of it. Our meddling in the Middle East dates back more than a century – and especially since the region became a giant oil spigot for us. The tentacles of western interference did not emerge in 2003, whatever we may choose to believe. Conversely, a globalised world inevitably entails one where a century-long colonial battlefield can easily come back to haunt us on our doorsteps.

The solution, complex as it will need to be, certainly cannot include the use by us of similarly indiscriminate violence, more “intervention” in the Middle East, or more scapegoating of Muslims. It will require taking a step back and considering how and why we too are addicted to this dance of death.

Your own posts also promote that sense of a civilisation clash and suggest an unwillingness for dialogue, understanding or compromise, which will be the only way to resolve present divergence and division. There'll be no military solution to the mess we're in. There rarely is.

If you read anything of worth on the rise of militant and reactionary Islamism in the Middle East, you'll know that a huge part of its emergence has to do with Western military interference.

If a particular subject (say, someone from the Middle East) has this sense of another civilisation (say, Western civilisation) militarily and politically trampling all over their own way of life (Middle Eastern civilisation), they'll naturally be less inclined to tolerate those they associate with the oppressing civilisation (Westerners) in all walks of life, be that culturally, socially or whatever.

Much closer to home, the north of Ireland is a perfect example of how socio-economic and political grievances or disagreement led to military conflict and a polarisation into "tribal" identity-based camps where individuals' stances on particular issues, policies or people in many ways became strictly defined by their identification with a particular political party or ideology. Sectarian and cultural differences were also stoked with tensions exacerbated as a result of this. The so-called "moderate" voices of the UUP and SDLP in the middle-ground lost power and influence and, with republicanism claiming and flying the flag of progressivism, you can see a hardening of opinions on the side of unionists, for example, which now translates into the LGBT community, women and Irish language activists still being denied rights that they enjoy elsewhere on these islands. Social conservatism and suspicion or hostility towards socio-cultural markers of Irishness are now, for many, seen as part and parcel of Ulster unionist identity; an identity that had once embraced the Irish language (http://amgobsmacked.blogspot.ie/2013/12/foreigners-lundys-and-irish-language.html) and regarded it as every bit its own as nationalists do in the modern day.

In Egypt and the rest of the Muslim world during the '60s and '70s, the word "secular" was "a label proudly worn", but it is now "shunned" (https://books.google.ie/books?id=Rjj48T4zrb8C&lpg=PA161&ots=Ckds1_70sP&dq=%22the%20word%20secular%2C%20a%20label%20proudl y%20worn%22&pg=PA161#v=onepage&q=%22the%20word%20secular,%20a%20label%20proudly%2 0worn%22&f=false). Caryle Murphy has written that, "[i]n the Islamist lexicon, ["secular"] is [now] a pejorative code-word for "Western" or "American" that is used to besmirch their foes". This lurch towards religious fundamentalism in the Middle East is a very modern phenomenon and is a direct consequence of Western interference in the region.

[Closed Account 2]

If you read anything of worth on the rise of militant and reactionary Islamism in the Middle East, you'll know that a huge part of its emergence has to do with Western military interference.



I think it's a factor, but you are oversimplifiying the causes of militancy. There are large scale Islamic insurgencies in Western China (vs the Chinese government), in Southern Russia (vs the Russian state), in the Southern Philippines (vs the Philippean Army, commanded by Rodrigo Duterte), in Myanmar (vs the ethnically Bhuddist state) and most of all in Syria (vs Assad's secular / Alawite government). In every one of these wars militants who originate from outside the theatre of conflict are involved and there is a mountain of evidence of external funding too.

Look at the states the Islamists are fighting, you have a wide range of types of states - Communist China, Authoritarian Philippines, non pro-Western Russia, ex military dictatorship but now democratic Myanmar. I think this dilutes the argument that western intervention is the predominant cause. In fact in the Syrian conflict the radicals have worked with western Governments to try and overthrow Assad.

I would say there is more of a case of Saudi influence (money, sponsored religious doctrine) being a factor than western intervention. Additionally the west has intervened in many regions in recent history (eg Latin America, Indochina) and there has never been the same level (or prolonged intensity) of counter reaction in those places.

[pineapple stu]

Danny - remember in school how they said that writing down everything you know was never the answer?

Seriously - I'm not reading all that. But to pick on two particularly outrageous - almost offensive, in fact - claims.

The first is -


In your opinion, does the attire of nuns have a place in modern Western culture?
Are you honestly comparing a nun's habit to a burqa? I assume you are, given that you're asking the same question about both garments.

Let's leave the really obvious difference to last. You choose to be a nun; if you want to enter the sisterhood, you choose to wear the habit. If you don't want to wear the habit, you're free not to become a nun. It's no more than a uniform; an identifier - no different really to a priest's dog-collar or a policeman's hat.

Compare that to a burqa which, despite your protestations, is not really a choice. If you're born into a culture where it's prevalent, you will have to wear it from puberty. If you don't like that - tough. The only way out is to leave Islam, but that's an automatic death penalty.

Comparable? Hardly.

And the really obvious difference is that a burqa dehumanises its wearer in a way a habit simply cannot do. It is completely linked to gender control - but you instead choose to make an altogether more bizarre suggestion -


Why do you feel entitled to view parts of their body they don't want you to see?

Do you feel similarly about non-Muslim women; that they should uncover or dress themselves to suit your preferences?
That's a ****ing disgusting suggestion, if you'll pardon my French. It is a particularly nasty example of the dangerous liberalist thinking prevalent of late; the idea that everything must be the west's fault, and other cultures can only be understood from the point of view that the west is inherently wrong.

Just to clarify - you are suggesting that my opposition to the burqa is somehow pervy; that I want to see these women strip off so I can get a titillating view of their hot Middle-Eastern jaw line? Is that seriously what you're saying here? If so, I find it particularly objectionable; a nasty, snide, judgemental opinion.

Let's turn the tables here, as you seem to like asking leading questions. Do you think that female genital mutilation - another form of gender control - should be allowed in Ireland, or do you think that my objection to this nasty practice is just a sense of entitlement on my part that I should be able to give proper oral sex to them?

Do you think adult-child marriage should be allowed in Ireland, or do you think that my objection to this particularly nasty practice is just me feeling entitled to not have them despoiled by the time I choose myself a nice teenager?

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other", says the Quran - yet you bizarrely seem to believe that wearing the burqa is a choice for most women. It clearly isn't. It is the choice of the men. This misogynistic sort of attitude feeds into other undesirable aspects of Islam - domestic abuse, for one, which is quite prevalent in Islamic culture because of some interpretations of the Quran saying it's ok to beat your wife ("So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them")

I make no apology for not wanting this sort of attitude spreading through Europe.

You seem quite happy to make excuses for it.

[osarusan]

That's a ****ing disgusting suggestion, if you'll pardon my French. It is a particularly nasty example of the dangerous liberalist thinking prevalent of late; the idea that everything must be the west's fault, and other cultures can only be understood from the point of view that the west is inherently wrong.
I agree with everything else you said*, but I don't see how his suggestion that you really just want to see their bodies is a an example dangerously liberalist thinking and how the west is inherently wrong.

It reads like to me like a cheap attempt to smear you by attributing such base and questionable motivations for your position...but nothing more than that.



*edit: although, it does sound like your objection to the burqa is because of what it symbolises, and I wonder if the conditions for wearing it because comparable to the habit of a nun (freely chosen, as an adult woman with full equality, with no threat for deciding to no longer wear it), then would you no longer have an issue with it being worn by those who wanted to do so.

[pineapple stu]

I guess my issue is that scanning through Danny's posts, everything is the west's fault. It's like a guilt complex or something. So Saudi Arabia bombing their neighbours is the west's fault for supplying them arms in the first place. Saudi Arabia not observing a minute's silence is the west's fault for not understanding their culture. cfdh_edmundo above quotes a part where Danny blames conservative/radical Islam on the west. I think - and I could be wrong - that this is the liberal mindset; let's let other cultures dominate at the expense of our own, and let them do what they want even it's inherently objectionable - to do otherwise is racist (with a screechy "a"). (Interestingly, Denmark has banned halal and kosher (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-bans-halal-and-kosher-slaughter-as-minister-says-animal-rights-come-before-religion-9135580.html) meat because it doesn't meet EU requirements; there was previously an exemption on religious grounds)

So everything is the west's fault. I don't even agree with recompensing families of African slaves in the US and elsewhere - yes, it was a particularly brutal thing to have happened, but the bottom line is that 75% of the population of Africa was owned by the other 25% (Mungo Park's travelogue is particularly eye-opening here), so black slavery in the US and elsewhere was arguably just an extension of the zeitgeist, and not something that we should feel guilty about 300 years later.

This then follows through to Danny's comment about how my objections to the burqa is my problem - the problem is my perving, not the Islamic attitude to women. I think it's just a similar mindset to the above examples. I may have been a bit exuberant in phrasing that, but that's the thread I'm trying to make I guess.

Would I object if the burqa was freely worn? That's really a completely hypothetical question. I'm not entirely sure it can be freely worn. People will tell you it is, but then here's a chart from UNICEF on domestic abuse in Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_domestic_violence#cite_note-41) -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/A_comparison_of_acceptance_of_domestic_violence_in _select_Arab_and_Muslim_majority_countries%2C_UNIC EF_2013.png/1280px-A_comparison_of_acceptance_of_domestic_violence_in _select_Arab_and_Muslim_majority_countries%2C_UNIC EF_2013.png

This shows the percentage of women in various countries who say it's ok for their husbands to hit them in certain circumstances. But it can't stand up to any rational thinking. Nobody wants to be hit; nobody wants to be a victim of domestic violence. So even tough the chart indicates a majority of women are in favour of domestic abuse in some countries, that doesn't mean I'm ok with it (anywhere, not just Islam, though I think it does have a particular problem), because I don't believe the respondents are replying freely. I would probably argue the same if there was a similar chart of views of burqa wearing.

[KrisLetang]

I guess my issue is that scanning through Danny's posts, everything is the west's fault. It's like a guilt complex or something.

I noticed this when we were all talking about the elections and Brexit...It's just hard to have adult conversations with people who are so far Left. It starts with everyone is a victim, then I am a victim...white guilt..I cant do anything in life unless the Nanny State is paying for it and supplying it...I mean can you imagine really arguing that the Burqa is a good thing? FFS. Come on. It's all about being controlling towards females. Who doesn't realize that. This also gets into the other conversation that people cannot have BC it isn't PC....there is a HUGE difference between being a settler and an immigrant. The U.S. is not a nation if immigrants. That's comical. It was British and Dutch for centuries and then a small sliver of West Africa with people sadly sold by their fellow Africans and then enslaved. The descendants of those slaves are due help and programs and affirmative action, etc...the other people we don't owe a GD thing to.

[osarusan]

Would I object if the burqa was freely worn? That's really a completely hypothetical question. I'm not entirely sure it can be freely worn.


I agree, and it's a hypothetical that is unlikely to become a reality.

[KrisLetang]

​The Saudi Prince cleaning house is just enormous news. Ballsy move.

[backstothewall]

This Burka stuff is nonsense folks.

Middle eastern society does indeed compel women to wear some form of hijab. But it does so in much the same way as western society compels both male and female to cover our genitals. If it is my wish to let everything hang loose I'll soon find myself standing in front of a judge.

There are other civilisations and other cultures where it is totally acceptable for a man to walk around with his meat and 2 veg on show, or for a woman not to cover her breasts. In fact there are cultures where it is odd to see anything else. We all know that if one of those gentlemen from some Amazonian tribe gets off a plane in Heathrow or JFK he is going to have to comply with western standards of dress before he gets out of the building. That sort of dress is considered haram in our culture.

We also know that if someone from Europe or North America finds himself travelling to the Amazon he isn't going to feel comfortable wearing nothing more than a necklace, and will probably stick with his jeans or a pair of shorts at best.

Similarly we all know that it is considered acceptable for women to expose their breasts on the beach in Europe. Is a Spanish woman oppressed if the same thing isn't allowed in the United States? Or Rossnowlagh?

This compulsion to comply with the dress code of western society exists but it does not amount to oppression of men or women. To suggest it does is ridiculous.

I don't know if there are many Arab women being forced to wear a Burka or not. But I do know that it is a value of our society that people can wear whatever they please so long as genitals are covered up. And I also know that the history of westerners trying to Arab society isn't a great one.

[pineapple stu]

Not entirely sure what your point is tbh?

First off, the hijab and burka are different, if related, things. The hijab is just the headdress; not a million miles off a granny shawl. They can actually be very fashionable, although I don't agree with its rigid compulsoriness in certain places (this (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/06/iranian-chess-player-to-compete-for-us-after-ban-for-not-wearing-hijab) is an example), especially for visiting foreigners, but hey, if you are visiting, you know what the rules are in advance, and you always have the choice not to visit.

The burka is the full cover - face, hands, the lot. It incorporates a hijab, but goes a lot further.

You are right that there are differing standards of dress modesty in various cultures - but I don't think your comparison of genital covering is really appropriate. The main reason I'd give is that genital covering is applied to both sexes, whereas the burqa is openly misogynistic. There is no comparative requirement for men. And that ties in with the more openly misogynistic parts of the Quran quoted earlier. (Genitals are also associated with more intimate, personal, acts, and also with disease - whereas showing face and making eye contact is actually a factor in building basic trust, and covering your face naturally gets in the way of this trust)

This is not a European thing either. The burqa is banned in many countries worldwide, including Cameroon, Chad, Gabon and Congo, albeit that in those places, the ban was because the burqa was being used to disguise suicide bombers and aid terrorism.

It was banned in Austria only a few weeks ago. The spokesperson for the Islamic Religious Community in Austria criticised the ban, saying it restricted some women to their homes (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/01/austrian-burqa-ban-comes-force/). Think about that - this is the spokesperson for the Muslim community in Austria saying that for some women, the only alternatives for them were (a) wear a burqa in public or (b) not go out in public at all. If only there was another way! And this approach is the very definition of oppressive, which you (I think) try to deny that a burqa is.

You say you don't know if there's many women forced to wear the burqa - but have a guess. What do you think? Honestly? Do you think the same women are happy being the victims of domestic violence, as per my last post?

We live in a mad world where, for example, gender quotas are being pushed - with the argument of empowering women, even though the concept is inherently sexist - while at the same time the burqa can be dismissed as grand because sure it's not our culture. (It could be just me, but the arguments seem to come from the same spectrum of society as well) It is absolutely not grand, and absolutely should be banned. Comparing it to walking down the street topless, or suggesting that the view it should be banned is because of some western repressed sexuality issues, is disingenuous and indeed actively harmful.

[backstothewall]

Not entirely sure what your point is tbh?

First off, the hijab and burka are different, if related, things. The hijab is just the headdress; not a million miles off a granny shawl. They can actually be very fashionable, although I don't agree with its rigid compulsoriness in certain places (this (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/06/iranian-chess-player-to-compete-for-us-after-ban-for-not-wearing-hijab) is an example), especially for visiting foreigners, but hey, if you are visiting, you know what the rules are in advance, and you always have the choice not to visit.

The burka is the full cover - face, hands, the lot. It incorporates a hijab, but goes a lot further.

You are right that there are differing standards of dress modesty in various cultures - but I don't think your comparison of genital covering is really appropriate. The main reason I'd give is that genital covering is applied to both sexes, whereas the burqa is openly misogynistic. There is no comparative requirement for men. And that ties in with the more openly misogynistic parts of the Quran quoted earlier. (Genitals are also associated with more intimate, personal, acts, and also with disease - whereas showing face and making eye contact is actually a factor in building basic trust, and covering your face naturally gets in the way of this trust).

I used the word hijab deliberately as it can describe the act of women covering up generally.

It's fine in our society for male nipples to be on show. A man isn't going to find himself in a police car being told to cover himself up with a blanket if he decided to walk down the street on a summers day with no top on. The same doesn't apply to women, but i don't think significant numbers of either men or women would consider this to be openly misogynistic, despite there being passages in the bible this could be tied into.

I'm not saying that the Burka is or isn't oppressive. I don't think it is possible to say that any item of clothing is or isn't oppressive by virtue of being worn. These people come from a different society, which frankly none of us understand. There are women being forced to wear the thing in public, which is obviously awful, but there are also women who would not feel comfortable being in public without one. If it is banned there are women who will no longer allowed outside the house by the men controlling them, but there will also be women who will no longer feel able to go out in public because they don't feel comfortable without one. I'm unclear how a ban helps either group of people.

A ban probably wouldn't change outcomes for women very much at all. Some people would be better of, but some would be worse off. But if we do nothing we can maintain out values that people can wear whatever clothes they like, and in time I think these communities will gradually become integrated into our society and we won't see this issue anymore.

[pineapple stu]

I used the word hijab deliberately as it can describe the act of women covering up generally.
But it is fundamentally different to the denial of face that is the burqa?


It's fine in our society for male nipples to be on show. A man isn't going to find himself in a police car being told to cover himself up with a blanket if he decided to walk down the street on a summers day with no top on.
Pretty weak argument to be honest. It in no way compares to the covering up of an entire person of one gender, de-humanising them and removing their connections with society, as I've outlined.


but there are also women who would not feel comfortable being in public without one. If it is banned there are women who will no longer allowed outside the house by the men controlling them, but there will also be women who will no longer feel able to go out in public because they don't feel comfortable without one. I'm unclear how a ban helps either group of people.
Imagine a non-Muslim man who insists his wife can only leave the house if she wears a blanket over her entire body, and even then possibly only if she has supervision. That man would quite rightly be arrested and jailed for domestic abuse - regardless of whether the woman has developed a form of agoraphobia which means she no longer feels comfortable in the open. In fact, it's often a symptom of being jailed or cooped up - people can find it difficult at first to deal with the outside world - but that's never been a justification for allowing the imprisonment to continue. Why should this be different just because it involves a Muslim?


But if we do nothing we can maintain out values that people can wear whatever clothes they like, and in time I think these communities will gradually become integrated into our society and we won't see this issue anymore.
Again, bull****. The idea that we should ignore such behaviour and hope that the perpetrators will ultimately accept our ways and integrate is as wishy-washy and useless as sending thoughts and prayers after another gun massacre in the US.

And in the meantime, the view that we can't challenge this kind of culture - not just Muslim culture, but any such culture - is a factor in the likes of the Rotherham sex ring going unchallenged for as long as it did.

[backstothewall]

Imagine a non-Muslim man who insists his wife can only leave the house if she wears a blanket over her entire body, and even then possibly only if she has supervision. That man would quite rightly be arrested and jailed for domestic abuse - regardless of whether the woman has developed a form of agoraphobia which means she no longer feels comfortable in the open. In fact, it's often a symptom of being jailed or cooped up - people can find it difficult at first to deal with the outside world - but that's never been a justification for allowing the imprisonment to continue. Why should this be different just because it involves a Muslim?

Who said it should be any different for muslims. In any case we already have plenty of laws to deal with this sort of scenario.


And in the meantime, the view that we can't challenge this kind of culture - not just Muslim culture, but any such culture - is a factor in the likes of the Rotherham sex ring going unchallenged for as long as it did.

Bull****. There have been plenty of examples of children in care being abused by white christian european types and exactly the same thing happened. A convenient excuse used by those who didn't do their job because they looked at the kids in questions as being a step or 2 above feral animals.

If you don't like the burka my advice is that you don't wear one. If anyone is being compelled to wear one that is a different matter but we already have laws covering that and that it not what you are suggesting. Legislation to ban particular types of clothing is a ridiculous suggestion which runs contrary to the values of Irish society. People can choose to wear whatever they damn well like here.

[DannyInvincible]

There are quite a few posts directed my way in this thread to which I've not had the opportunity to reply properly yet; apologies for the lengthy delay, but I'll respond to them directly when I get a bit more time.

In the meantime, just a bit on those questions of mine that angered P_Stu above... Fair enough, Stu; your motive for banning the burqa isn't so that you can lasciviously ogle at Muslim women's jaw-lines, but I do find your particular and disproportionate preoccupation with the attire of a minority of Muslim women a bit odd. Think about how a Muslim woman who has chosen* to wear a burqa would feel upon being instructed to remove it by a Western non-Muslim male; you're essentially violating or attempting to spoil her sense of modesty. Your Western notions of modesty (and, yes, we do have them too) are not universal.

For someone to so intensely and selectively focus on attire of a minority of Muslim women so that that focus translates into actually wanting to impose a prohibition on the wearing of what is a very specific, symbolic and culturally-significant item of clothing just seems to me like an unpleasant mix of Islamophobia and misogyny. For many men who espouse such dictatorial views - similar to those you've expressed - this is undoubtedly what guides them. Of course, they conceal their prejudice and desire to police how Muslim women present themselves by dressing up their repellent views in the more agreeable language of feminism and female emancipation. The male gaze, a concept women only know too well, is guided by a strong sense or presumption of masculine entitlement.

This (http://theburqahdebates.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=1), by Anna Greer, is good:


However, it is clear, from discussions I’ve had over the years, that it is often white men, who are not exactly torch bearers for the gender equity movement, who object the most vehemently to a woman who removes herself from their gaze. They not only object to face covering shrouds like the burqa, but also to the very common hijab. One problem these men have with the Islamic veil, even if they don’t realise it, is that it challenges their assumed entitlement to gaze upon women’s bodies – not a legitimate reason to object to the burqa. Of course, they co-opt the language of women’s rights to voice their objections....

This selective concern for women’s rights is merely a way for people to articulate their racist nationalism and it’s an attitude that can be found through all levels of society – in the general populace, in the media, in the government.

What I said was a way of emphasising the above point - probably articulated better than my attempt - and was a way of challenging the odd selectivity that sees Western men focusing their indignation specifically upon Muslim bodies and dress, but I accept I could have done so more tactfully, less crudely or mischievously and without the loaded questions or personalised innuendo. Fair enough; apologies.

*Personal choice, preferably informed, is at the crux of this debate for me, so your attempted analogies (in relation to child marriage and the genital cutting of minors) don't really hold. And free personal choice, despite your doubts over whether or not a burqa can ever be freely worn, is of course possible for masses of Muslim women in France (and the West), which is where we've been talking about. If a veil is being forced upon a woman, I obviously don't condone that, but that's a domestic abuse issue and there are laws to deal with that. The issue here is about choice and personal freedom. If that is being compromised, I obviously won't defend that.

The protestations of which you speak aren't my protestations. It's not my "bizarre suggestion". I'm simply repeating what I've been told by Muslims and have even quoted veil-wearing Muslim women for you. If you chose not to read what I posted in reply to your expressed opinion, that's up to you, but you could learn a lot from such voices. They know better than you or I as to why they wear the burqa because, after all, they're the ones wearing it. I've provided plenty of evidence - words straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak - to demonstrate that the wearing of a burqa can be and is a choice for plenty of Muslim women.

Perhaps, in your opinion, the burqa inherently dehumanises all wearers. In the opinion of many wearers, however, it provides them with a sense of empowerment (https://thebrownhijabi.com/2014/12/13/dear-liberal-feminists-please-allow-me-a-little-agency/) as they feel they are no longer subjected to the male gaze. It enables them to take control of who can and can't view their body. I'm certain it acts as a socio-cultural identifier or uniform for many too, just like the habit might for a nun. To believe that it isn't inherently possible for a Muslim woman to voluntarily opt to wear a veil by virtue of her being a Muslim is a profoundly patronising and paternalistic position that infantilises Muslim women.

I'm not making excuses for anything. My issue is that I get an over-riding sense that you focus your moral distaste disproportionately towards Muslims, both in the West and Middle East or you hold Muslims to different standards and apply one rule to them but an altogether more sympathetic one to those you regard as "us", despite the fact Westerners can be and are guilty of the very same things of which you accuse Muslims (including child marriage and infant genital cutting).

It just sits uneasy with me as I get a whiff of infantilisation, paternalisation, cultural supremacism and that old imperialistic/colonialist subtext of "needing to civilise the natives" (in spite of imperialism's own inherent barbarism) off it. You present Muslim women as victims of a false consciousness who lack agency and who are participating in their own oppression whilst seemingly seeing Western women as immune from this. There's not just a moralistic and Islamophobic arrogance in that; it's indicative of double standards. It's always easy to target your disgust at foreigners or the "other" whose culture we don't really understand, but we can be prone to blind-spots when it comes to looking back at ourselves in the mirror.

Besides, thousands of practicing Muslim women in France and elsewhere (including the West and Muslim-majority countries) wear no veil at all without issue, so this alleged pressure or enforcement of which you speak (to wear the veil) evidently isn't universal. This notion of universal pressure is a figment of your imagination. I get the impression you don't know or talk to many Muslims. Do you actually know any even? Genuine question.

Plenty of Muslim women at my uni and where I worked in Manchester wore no veil at all. Many dressed in Western-style attire. None were subject to the threat of death from anyone. Or, if they were, they very explicitly and publicly rebelled against it with ease and without any apparent fear on a daily basis. They're still alive today, unsurprisingly.

To mention the death penalty in the context of this debate is a total red herring. I'm sorry, but it's sheer and utter sensationalised nonsense born out of pure ignorance. If one of those aforementioned women, who are evidently under no pressure whatsoever to wear a burqa, voluntarily decided to wear one, would you still take issue with her freely-made personal choice? It would be pretty illiberal and intolerant of you to do so, but, if you would, why so? It seems to me that it's just because they're from a different culture to your own; a culture that you consider to be outside the "norm", a culture that you don't really understand and a culture that you don't really want to understand. Of course, you're entitled to your prejudices, but I just don't think you can square them with previous claims you made about championing free expression, opposing gender control and so forth.

Have you even thought about the practicalities of a burqa ban? How would it help women exactly? Say, a Muslim woman is found to be wearing a burqa in public in spite of a ban in that jurisdiction... Seeing as you advocate the ban, what sort of penalty would you threaten to impose upon her? A fine? A prison term? Who's that helping? Nobody.

Such would only render women who wear the burqa more invisible, particularly if they're already wearing it under pressure. It'd alienate them. They'd refuse to participate in public life (or would be compelled not to if pressure to wear a burqa is being exerted upon them by another party). You can't credibly argue that you're emancipating women by treating them in such a way that your ban would logically necessitate. So, not only is it hypocritical; it's also impractical, logically contradictory and counter-productive.

See, I think the burqa ban is really just about helping bigoted white "Christian" Westerners feel more comfortable about themselves and their places of dwelling by removing visible signs of Muslim identity from a public realm they arrogantly assume to be entirely their own.

[DannyInvincible]

Just one final point for now (to P_Stu); you can read what you want here and I'll respond to what I want in the manner I choose, unless the mods have some issue with the manner in which I'm responding (although I don't see why there should be an issue). That's how forums operate. If you'd rather not defend your points when challenged on them, that's completely your call, but mocking me for essentially asking (or reasonably expecting) you to defend your publicly-stated positions and continually criticising me for paying you and your opinions - some of which I find troubling, prejudicial and profoundly disagreeable - the respect of a detailed challenge is both poor form and pretty lame. If you're not prepared to defend your position - the "truth" of which is not self-evident, believe it or not - then why bother posting it in the first place? If you don't have time, just say you don't have time. That'd be fine and perfectly understandable, but it's your issue ultimately, so please don't try to shift whatever frustrations you might have over your opinion being challenged on to me or make your unwillingness to defend yourself about me (as if I'm to blame) by mocking me or trying to curtail me through sarcastic attempts to belittle and embarrass me.

[pineapple stu]

Fair enough, Stu; your motive for banning the burqa isn't so that you can lasciviously ogle at Muslim women's jaw-lines, but...
Is that it? Seriously, that's the best you can come up with? Just a reminder of what you posted -


Why do you feel entitled to view parts of their body they don't want you to see? Do you feel similarly about non-Muslim women; that they should uncover or dress themselves to suit your preferences?
That's an utterly disgraceful comment which deserves an apologetic retraction, not this kind of wishy-washy fudge. I'm raising serious issues about domestic abuse here, and all you think it's ok to accuse me of some manner of sexual deviancy? You don't get to back out of a comment like that with hands up, laughing and saying "Oh ok, fair enough - but..."

I'll say it again - that comment is a ****ing disgrace, and completely undermines your posts on the topic, which are nothing but a continual stream of west-shaming - the latest being -


See, I think the burqa ban is really just about helping bigoted white "Christian" Westerners feel more comfortable about themselves and their places of dwelling by removing visible signs of Muslim identity from a public realm they arrogantly assume to be entirely their own.
I'm sorry - objecting to the burqa is bigotry now? I have outlined my very clear objections to the burqa on, primarily, domestic abuse grounds, but you twist that to conclude I'm bigoted? What on earth are you talking about?

You say you know plenty of Muslims who don't feel under the threat of the death penalty, concluding that -


And free personal choice, despite your doubts over whether or not a burqa can ever be freely worn, is of course possible for masses of Muslim women in France (and the West), which is where we've been talking about
Of course free choice is possible. But your example of Muslims you know who don't feel under the threat of the death penalty by forfeiting the burqa can't lead to the conclusion that this means there is no such threat. It's dangerously false logic. There can of course be Muslims - those you'd be more likely to know, arguably - for whom the death penalty is a cultural issue, but that doesn't mean that there aren't those for whom it is an issue. Honour killings, for example, are very much an issue in the UK among the Muslim community. That's people murdering their own family members - sisters, wives or daughters; almost exclusively women - because they've failed to adhere to Muslim norms. That's not, as you suggest, "sheer and utter sensationalised nonsense born out of pure ignorance" - that is fact. There are plenty of examples here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#United_Kingdom) of people in the UK being murdered for being too westernised, having a boyfriend, not wanting to go in for an arranged child marriage.

Numbers are hard to confirm, and convictions hard to obtain, because the communities involved will keep shtum about it - which is of course part of why they're an issue. But it's reckoned at at least one person a month in the UK is murdered by a brother, an uncle, a father, a cousin for, effectively, un-Islamic conduct (and these crimes are almost exclusively involving Muslims) Then there are maybe a further 200-300 honour crimes a month - imprisonment and physical abuse in the main.

And look at the Austrian Muslim official I quoted, who indicated that the choices for some Muslim women are either wear the burqa or not be let out of the house. Is there freedom of choice in these cases, do you think? My arse there is.

You will, of course, try to justify this by pointing to the fact that non-Muslims kill each other too - and indeed they do, but not in this regular manner. Not in this somewhat culturally accepted way of an entire family colluding to murder someone because their honour has been shamed by, say, a female relative getting a text from a boy.

And this is, by definition, the more radical, conservative interpretation - there are many, many more liberal Muslims, of course, but it is the conservative element that are more likely to hold females in such low regard that they enforce the burqa. Your comparisons go out the window when you refuse to address this aspect of the culture, and instead dismiss talk of this as "troubling, prejudicial and profoundly disagreeable", or "infantilisation, paternalisation, cultural supremacism"

You're willfully ignoring the counter-issues, instead either blaming everything on the west or throwing personal insults, and that can hardly lead to a full discussion of the issue.

[backstothewall]

PS. I respect you. You are part of the furniture around here, and you usually talk a lot of sense. But this is bordering on the surreal.

This bit in particular jumped out at me



You will, of course, try to justify this by pointing to the fact that non-Muslims kill each other too - and indeed they do, but not in this regular manner. Not in this somewhat culturally accepted way of an entire family colluding to murder someone because their honour has been shamed by, say, a female relative getting a text from a boy.


What you are describing is incredibly rare. I've not been able to find a single example of what you describe in Irish history. It could never be described as regular, and it most certainly is not culturally accepted. When i googled "Ireland Honour Killing" the closest i found was an incident in Drogheda in 2011 when one of those muslim women (who you contend are practically slaves) had thrown her husband out of their flat and presumably moved her new boyfriend in, only for the husband to return and stab them both. Not at all what you describe and something that happens in the non-muslim population fairly frequently. We had a guy plead guilty to murder only this week following a similar case in Portstewart.

I'll say it again as i think it bears repeating. What you describe has literally never happened in Ireland

If you want to talk about an example in Ireland of a culturally accepted way of an entire family colluding against a female relative when their honour has been shamed, there is only one place to look. Lets not get sidetracked by that s**tshow but we all know what went on within living memory, from symphysiotomies to septic tanks, and we all know that the people doing it weren't Muslims.

[pineapple stu]

it most certainly is not culturally accepted.
In Pakistan, until last year you could kill a family relative and get away without any punishment if another family member pardoned you (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37578111). But as this kind of killing often involves family collusion, that's pretty much a given. So they're technically illegal (because it's murder), but they were usually brushed under the carpet. How is that not cultural acceptance? It's like drink driving laws in Kerry. (Obviously the Pakistan connection then links in with the large expat population in England)


I'll say it again as i think it bears repeating. What you describe has literally never happened in Ireland
Eh? I wasn't talking about Ireland. I was clearly talking about the UK. There are plenty of other European countries where it's a growing problem too, and obviously it's a huge issue in some places in the Middle East - check the link I supplied.

It is an issue. So freedom of choice is not something that, as Danny suggests, is there for everyone.

[The Fly]

Given that the Current Affairs section seems to be withering on the vine, I intended to create a new thread referencing a recent news item from Denmark which I thought would provoke some interesting debate. Then...I happened to notice this topic at the bottom of the page. (As I read through it I was sure some sort of record was on for an online discussion fulfilling Godwin's Law :eek:)

Anyway, the topic relates to the banning of the burqa and niqab, already mentioned in this thread, and the decision by the Danish government in May of this year to do just that. The new law came into force on August 1st; and one woman became the first person to be charged with wearing a full-face veil in public soon after its enactment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45064237

It raises interesting questions around what actually constitutes tolerance; notions of multiculturalism & integration; and, to a degree, immigration itself. What say you?

(Original story - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44319921)

[peadar1987]

Given that the Current Affairs section seems to be withering on the vine, I intended to create a new thread referencing a recent news item from Denmark which I thought would provoke some interesting debate. Then...I happened to notice this topic at the bottom of the page. (As I read through it I was sure some sort of record was on for an online discussion fulfilling Godwin's Law :eek:)

Anyway, the topic relates to the banning of the burqa and niqab, already mentioned in this thread, and the decision by the Danish government in May of this year to do just that. The new law came into force on August 1st; and one woman became the first person to be charged with wearing a full-face veil in public soon after its enactment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45064237

It raises interesting questions around what actually constitutes tolerance; notions of multiculturalism & integration; and, to a degree, immigration itself. What say you?

(Original story - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44319921)

I totally disagree with the principles behind the burka, but if a woman chooses to wear it, that's her choice and her choice alone. I'd be totally in favour of a law banning people from being coerced into wearing one, probably as part of a wider emotional abuse law, but banning it altogether is reactionary and regressive. And the argument about making it hard to identify people doesn't fly for me. Unless it's a law against all face coverings, balaclavas, bandanas, motorbike helmets and snoods, it's just Islamophobia by the back door.

[pineapple stu]

Problem is it's very hard to tell if someone is choosing to wear something. Particularly in a culture with such a history of repression of female choice.

That said, the bans in general tend to be phrased as bans against all face covers.

The tolerance argument goes both ways. Are we to be tolerant of their ways without any tolerance of our ways in return?

[The Fly]

I totally disagree with the principles behind the burka, but if a woman chooses to wear it, that's her choice and her choice alone. I'd be totally in favour of a law banning people from being coerced into wearing one, probably as part of a wider emotional abuse law, but banning it altogether is reactionary and regressive. And the argument about making it hard to identify people doesn't fly for me. Unless it's a law against all face coverings, balaclavas, bandanas, motorbike helmets and snoods, it's just Islamophobia by the back door.

I'd like to expand on your point regarding the difficulty in identification and posit the following -

Given that the majority of communication is held to be conveyed through body language/the non-verbal, how would you feel about going for a medical consultation if the doctor is wearing a burqa or niqab?...or, for example, your child being taught in school by a teacher wearing said garment?

[peadar1987]

Problem is it's very hard to tell if someone is choosing to wear something. Particularly in a culture with such a history of repression of female choice.

That said, the bans in general tend to be phrased as bans against all face covers.

The tolerance argument goes both ways. Are we to be tolerant of their ways without any tolerance of our ways in return?

Of course not. But I don't think choosing to wear a burqa is really intolerance of western ways, if the person doing it chooses to abide by principles such as democracy, freedom of religion, rule of law and so on.


I'd like to expand on your point regarding the difficulty in identification and posit the following -

Given that the majority of communication is held to be conveyed through body language/the non-verbal, how would you feel about going for a medical consultation if the doctor is wearing a burqa or niqab?...or, for example, your child being taught in school by a teacher wearing said garment?

I wouldn't mind, so long as the doctor was still able to do their job (I think it's unlikely someone who thinks it's "immodest" to let a man see their cheekbones would ever perform a prostate exam on one, or even use a stethoscope, but you never know). I don't have kids, but I'd be happy enough for someone in a burqa to teach them, so long as they didn't try and indoctrinate the children into their reasons for wearing one, which would be something I would apply to someone of any religion (or indeed political persuasion).

[pineapple stu]

Of course not. But I don't think choosing to wear a burqa is really intolerance of western ways.
I don't think I agree with that tbh, for the reasons I noted earlier on how fundamental facial expressions are to our communications and even trust. I think the burqa is demonstrably incompatible in that regard

[The Fly]

I wouldn't mind, so long as the doctor was still able to do their job (I think it's unlikely someone who thinks it's "immodest" to let a man see their cheekbones would ever perform a prostate exam on one, or even use a stethoscope, but you never know).

Fair enough, although I doubt most people would agree with you. Having a consultation with a doctor you can't properly interact with is an obvious and significant issue. (Particularly for the prostate exam! ;))


I don't have kids, but I'd be happy enough for someone in a burqa to teach them, so long as they didn't try and indoctrinate the children into their reasons for wearing one, which would be something I would apply to someone of any religion (or indeed political persuasion).

Your child might not like it though, and because their interaction with said teacher is compromised shall we say, then their education will likely be impaired as a result.

In any case I find it hard to imagine how a burqa wearing applicant would make it through the interview process for either job. Which probably says something in itself.

[SkStu]

I don't have kids, but I'd be happy enough for someone in a burqa to teach them

Just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying here.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f3aaa7d949b876d9e15abbacf247308d-c

The burqa would make you happy enough?

[peadar1987]

Just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying here.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f3aaa7d949b876d9e15abbacf247308d-c

The burqa would make you happy enough?

Yup, it would.

[backstothewall]

I get that this is a hypothetical, but I'd be a lot more worried about the teacher than the kids! We reduced teachers to attending counselling for a hell of a lot less.

[pineapple stu]

Yup, it would.
Does that not betray a lack of consideration for basic women's rights though?

[peadar1987]

Does that not betray a lack of consideration for basic women's rights though?

I don't think so. I mean, the women who choose to wear burqas are, in my opinion, victims of a horrible ideology that pushes medieval notions of "modesty" and antiquated gender roles, but for all that, it doesn't make it any less true that they feel uncomfortable wearing western dress. It's something that's ingrained in many of them as strongly as wearing a top is for most western women. If they're good enough at their job to make up for the impediment to communication benno mentioned, I think they should be able to wear whatever they wanted.

We had an Irish teacher in primary school whose face was botoxed so heavily and caked in so much make-up that it was essentially a mask. For all the facial expressions she was able to show she might as well have been wearing a burqa

[osarusan]

The tolerance argument goes both ways. Are we to be tolerant of their ways without any tolerance of our ways in return?
I don't really think this is a very strong argument.

Surely we should decide what is right or not, fair or not, based on our own principles, and without looking to 'balance' their intolerance with intolerance of our own, or being worried about 'giving in' too much.

There seems to be a hint of tit-for-tat mentality about it, a kind of 'Well if you're going to behave like a dick/child, then I'll treat you like a dick/child' mentality, which I don't believe is how lawmakers should be thinking.

[pineapple stu]

Who's "we" though?

If it's "native" Irish people deciding what is/isn't acceptable in Irish culture, then I'm fine with that.

I don't at all hold to the notion that we shouldn't be able to question foreign cultural influences.

(I think we're on the same wavelength roughly)


I don't think so. I mean, the women who choose to wear burqas are, in my opinion, victims of a horrible ideology that pushes medieval notions of "modesty" and antiquated gender roles, but for all that, it doesn't make it any less true that they feel uncomfortable wearing western dress.
There are more choices than just "burqa" and "western dress" when it comes to what to wear in fairness.

As far as I can see, you (correctly) describe burqa-wearing as a symptom of "a horrible ideology that pushes medieval notions of "modesty" and antiquated gender roles", but then on the other hand you seem reluctant to condemn/ban that. I'm not sure how to square off that contradiction.

[osarusan]

Who's "we" though?

If it's "native" Irish people deciding what is/isn't acceptable in Irish culture, then I'm fine with that.

I don't at all hold to the notion that we shouldn't be able to question foreign cultural influences.

If that was a reply to me, I'm a bit confused as to what the last part means - it doesn't seem to be linked to anything I said. Maybe I'm just missing something.

I don't have any argument with the idea Irish people (through their elected representatives) should be deciding what is or isn't acceptable in Irish culture - but I think that should be standalone decision, and not the kind of tit-for-tat I mentioned.

If lawmakers want to make a law on something like this (or on anything) I think they need to be able to justify it on its own merits as being beneficial to our society, rather than in comparison with how a certain group of people (Muslims in this case) either in this country or other countries are guilty of intolerance. I think that the argument that 'It goes both ways - if they are going to be intolerant, then we will be too' isn't one that's easy to justify.

[pineapple stu]

I suppose my point is that we're constantly hearing that we should respect other cultures, but we rarely hear that we should respect our own. So I'm trying to argue against this viewpoint as well as against the burqa.

I agree decisions of what is/isn't acceptable should be on their own individual merits rather than "just because".

I think in this case, there is a very clear case to be made both on cultural and etiquette norms (ie the role of facial expression in human communication), and the gender discrimination that it implies.

I wouldn't be in favour of a sari ban because it has neither of these issues

[osarusan]

I think in this case, there is a very clear case to be made both on cultural and etiquette norms (ie the role of facial expression in human communication), and the gender discrimination that it implies.

Tbh I think it would hard to justify a blanket ban as an appropriate measure in a scenario where two women are just walking down a street or around a park while wearing either a burqa or a niqab. Is that really so much of a threat to our culture that a complete ban is proportionate?

It might be easier to argue a case-by-case ban, with for example school teachers, police officers, or locations such as courts* or city halls, being positions and places where people are forbidden from wearing them.

* But even then, with witnesses being allowed to give their evidence anonymously/from behind a screen (once their identity has been verified to the satisfaction of the court), there is precedent there which goes against that.

[pineapple stu]

I don't think I agree. I think it's a women's rights issue and I don't see why we should be hypocritical about tolerating this while trumping gender equality. And I think it's a basic integration issue; you cannot integrate into society if you are not prepared to engage with it at its most basic level. Integration is a big issue with Muslim immigration in particular.

I see no more reason to limit any ban to places of officialdom than I see a reason to limit nudity to the same places.

[osarusan]

I don't think I agree. I think it's a women's rights issue and I don't see why we should be hypocritical about tolerating this while trumping gender equality. And I think it's a basic integration issue; you cannot integrate into society if you are not prepared to engage with it at its most basic level. Integration is a big issue with Muslim immigration in particular.

Firstly, I think it's something of a contradiction to bring up women's rights when a ban would limit those rights. Although I suppose your position is that it is for the greater good.

Secondly, if the ban would come from the perspective of integration, I think we'd need to examine the outcome of any proposed ban on the burqa or niqab regarding integration. Overall, will it lead to more integration, or less? At a simple level - in countries or regions where it has already been banned, do we see more Muslim women in public without that headwear, or do we actually see fewer Muslim women in public fullstop. At a more fundamental level - how is integration measured, and are there comparisons between pre and post-ban levels of integration.

One of the arguments given against a ban is that it could effectively condemn women to a life indoors, as they will simply not go outside without a burqa or niqab. I don't know how realistic that outcome is, or how widespread it would be, but it needs to be considered.

EDIT: In light of this debate, I realised there is something a bit perverse about effectively forcing Muslim children* to attend what is (nominally at least) a Catholic school, as something like 90% of Irish primary schools are (many of which have religious names or have a cross or other iconography on the crest).

*or, indeed, children of any other religion, or no religion.

[pineapple stu]

Firstly, I think it's something of a contradiction to bring up women's rights when a ban would limit those rights. Although I suppose your position is that it is for the greater good.
Yeah, the second part.

I think Muslim integration (or lack of) is generally considered to be a big issue in Europe. (I'm not in favour of open immigration policies at all, but that's a separate issue). So yes, there is an issue as to whether this would impinge women's rights when they are already here. But I think a burqa ban would also send out a signal to potential immigrants about cultural norms expected in Ireland. Don't like it? Don't come here so. Harsh? I don't think so. I think it needs to be considered from both sides.

BTW, there was a Muslim kid in my class in primary school. He sat out religion, and everything else was grand. You could almost say he was ahead of his time. :)

Though the schools thing was actually something which came up in a chance discussion last night - albeit the other way around. There's been a concerted plan to Islamify schools in England (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Horse) by a concerted campaign of complaints from a minority about non-Muslim practices, and of effectively taking over school boards. There's even been a number of school principals resigning after having a Muslim ethos imposed on them. A government report found a "sustained, co-ordinated agenda to impose segregationist attitudes and practices of a hardline, politicised strain of Sunni Islam in several Birmingham schools." That's really worrying.