The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Intelligent debate will respect women wearing the burqa > Comments

Intelligent debate will respect women wearing the burqa : Comments

By Elizabeth Lakey, published 6/9/2010

The paternalistic lack of respect for the women who wear a burqa, masquerading as 'enlightened ideals', is an abomination.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
"There are a thousand ways of being a Muslim in every day life, just the same as there are for being a Christian or an Atheist."
One way of being an atheist is to deny the existence of a god. What are some of the thousands of other ways?
Posted by GlenC, Monday, 6 September 2010 11:26:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article that I predict will make no difference at all to the bigots who'd like to ban the burqa. Legislating what people are allowed to wear is not the path to a free society.

GlenC - my way of being an atheist is not to deny the existence of a god, but rather to be unconvinced on the basis of all the evidence for the existence of one. Some atheists write books about their atheism and go on TV and speaking tours to promote them, while others keep their atheism to themselves. Some atheists adopt a live and let live approach to religions, while others campaign against them. Etc etc.

That's just off the top of my head, but I think that's the kind of thing that Elizabeth Lakey was getting at.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 6 September 2010 11:59:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cj "Legislating what people are allowed to wear is not the path to a free society"

But legislating what people can and can't do with energy, whether they can use whatever power source they want, with committees on carbon taxes .. is a path to a free society?

Funny how you demand a free society when it suits you and no choice whatever when your political party insists there be no debate, no slackers, no sceptics on a committee with the prerequisite is being already convinced of the outcome.

How typical of a greenie totalitarian .. you're all for free society, if it's the one you want, but have zero tolerance for anyone else's free society.
I want legislation against forcing women to wear what the medieval thinking remnant of failed societies insist. Protect these women, except we won't because we all have to tolerate intolerance in our society, and that's what is used against us constantly, it degrades our modern society to have to pander to the PC correctness of a few.

The burqa is a symbol of intolerance, it is the islamic intolerance of a free society for women, by insisting women wear the veil, burqa whatever, is not free will - they do it because their menfolk are completely intolerant and they are taught from an early age this is how their society is, or else!
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 6 September 2010 12:36:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe wearing the full burqa is an abomination on all women who wear it. Why would any human being want to be covered from head to toe, passing through life like a ghost, with the only people allowed to see her are her partner and close family members. It must be unhealthy to always be covered up, your body never feeling the sun or any kind of weather for that matter.
What power a man must feel, to control a woman this way.
You only have to watch burqa clad females in the shops to know how they really feel when their men are not around.
Intelligent debate will never be possible whilst men have this kind of total control over their female family members.
Posted by MAREELORRAINE, Monday, 6 September 2010 12:39:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I second that MAREELORRAINE.

But the fight is against ALL religious control of ANYONE not just the few forced into wearing a bag over their head.
Posted by mikk, Monday, 6 September 2010 2:24:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJM: My question was of little significance to the author's topic and asking it was probably naughty. The thought behind it was that there is a difference between how you qualify to be a Muslim, Christian or atheist on the one hand and how you give expression to your “Muslimness”, Christianity or atheism on the other. I'm not sure about being a Muslim but I would have thought that the (only) way to be a Christian would be to accept the (assumed) teachings of Christ but that, having done that, there were many ways open to you to express your Christianity — probably thousands going by the number of Christian churches in the USA. And that the only way to be an atheist would be to deny the existence of a god but that, having done that, you could be as active or passive a denier as you liked. We could probably argue (but won’t) about whether what you define as atheism is merely what I think of as agnosticism. I think that to be an atheist you have to go beyond merely noting the lack of evidence for a god; you have to say that there is enough evidence to conclude that there is no god, albeit only on the basis of strong probability. I can only plead to having spent too many years trying to get examination committees to write their questions so that the candidates would think that they meant what the committees assumed they did. I will try to keep my irrelevant interventions to myself in future, especially in cases like this where the dilemma raised in the article is too hard for me to resolve.
Posted by GlenC, Monday, 6 September 2010 3:29:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A quick question before this thread starts going on for 20 pages with no new development, why do both sides keep talking about "all Muslim women" in regards to the Burqa when the majority of Muslim women in this country wear no such thing (nor often even a scarf), and consider the full implications of this?

I mean, people outline extensively how most Muslim women are moderate and secular (this I too believe) and only a minority aren't and wear the Burqa- but never connect the dots that if this right were affected, only that minority of non-moderate,non-secular women not mentioned would actually be affected?

So long as the far right don't start some crazy stance about "Islam" in general, if this goes through, and is done so on a secularist/feminist reasoning, I seriously doubt those majority women who don't wear one would care (considering a good number of Muslim-majority countries enforce something similar regarding restricting Burqas).

Oh and can we please stop pretending this is a "protecting the oppressed women" issue- ALL of us?
It's not healthy- gives you wrinkles.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 6 September 2010 3:38:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza

"why do both sides keep talking about "all Muslim women" in regards to the Burqa when the majority of Muslim women in this country wear no such thing"

For the same reason people like to 'outrage' over the tiny minority of asylum seekers who actually arrive by boat. Think of it as a smokescreen over the herd of elephants in room. It has always been easier to abuse a minority.

Yeah, I know I used 'outrage' as a verb - so shoot me.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Monday, 6 September 2010 3:48:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it a really good thing, MAREELORRAINE, that you are able to exercise the freedom to express your own, personal opinion..

>>I believe wearing the full burqa is an abomination on all women who wear it.<<

Fair enough, if that's the way you see it.

But qualifying it with speculation doesn't make it any more, or less, than your own, personal, opinion.

>>Why would any human being want to be covered from head to toe...<<

Surely, whether you understand their decision is neither here nor there.

I can see why you might say "I wouldn't want to be covered from head to toe". But you aren't them, are you?

Personally, I often wonder "Why would any human being want to wear a bow tie". But they do.

A mystery.

>>It must be unhealthy to always be covered up<<

There may or may not be statistics on this. But that's really irrelevant, because what you really mean is "I'd find it really icky to be covered up like that"

For my part, I often wonder "Why would any human being want to wear a polyester shirt". But some people choose to do so.

Icky.

>>What power a man must feel, to control a woman this way<<

Is that a cause, or an effect, that you are describing there? Does the burqa cause a man to feel power over the wearer, or does the power he exerts cause the burqa to be worn?

And isn't your statement null and void anyway, if the woman freely chooses to wear the burqa?

>>You only have to watch burqa clad females in the shops to know how they really feel when their men are not around<<

I've never had inclination - and very rarely the opportunity - to do this. So perhaps you can explain i) how they feel and ii) how you know that they feel that way?

Should be interesting.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 6 September 2010 4:18:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pericles you are the master of political correctness.

we know that it is a unique extreme muslim thing by some adherents to insist their women cover up like this, that their menfolk insist their religion demands it - or they would be dishonored should their woman be seen by any other man than her husband or relatives.

the women involved know the repercussions of these things, death, stoning, both, or maybe 100 lashes for not covering her face correctly - Iran, today in the news.

your defense is so typical of our PC world, where anyone who challenges it, becomes the bad guy and has to justify why they question it. so you tolerate intolerance but not anyone who questions the intolerance.

you don't need to feel or explain how you know they feel that way, that's just a rhetorical trick to enforce your pc view.

we should not tolerate this behavior in our society and we "feel" sickened knowing this is what's going on - I know I feel sickened by it because I "feel" sickened by it.

your logic is that this intolerant religion can impose whatever it likes because we should be tolerant to all aspects of other peoples lives

I disagree, why should we tolerate this hideous practice by a few of the extreme intolerant of this world? Because it offends your precious sensitivity and world view? What about the victims who cannot even have a hope of complaining .. the ones in these outfits?

Your attempt to reduce this debate to appear trivial just underlines that you seem not to understand deliberately so as to exercise frivolous and patronizing word play.

That's kind of like putting your head in the sand and refusing to see what you are defending.

the author makes a similar point, by her definition, you are unintelligent if you do not agree with her, more patronizing and the lack of respect is to the victims, not to people raising it as an issue
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 6 September 2010 4:36:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, Yes it is my personal opinion, personal opinions are how the world revolves around different ideas. If there were no personal opnions there would be no need for on-line opinion.
I ask you - is there a male alive who would go through life covered from head to toe because their partner does not want their face to be seen?
I would never use the word "icky", how old are you.
Of course a man would feel power over a woman when she wears the full burqa. It is questionable if any woman would ever freely choose to be covered up in such a way she is unrecognisable, or that she would truthfully disclose exactly whose choice it is for her to be covered up.
I don't know whether you are female or male but any female can tell when another woman is happy shopping for colourful clothes for herself or her children.
And yes my opinion is the wearing of the full burqa is an abomination on the women who wear it.
Posted by MAREELORRAINE, Monday, 6 September 2010 4:54:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While wearing the burqa may or may not be a paternalistic imposition, making it illegal to wear the burqa certainly is.

How many of us engaged in this argument actually know a woman who wears a burqa? How many of us have asked her why she wears it?

I know for sure that were I to travel in some Islamic countries I would most certainly don a burqa and be very glad I had it.

There's nothing simple about burqa wearing. There's nothing simple about the Islamic culture.

If it's womens' rights everyone's worried about well there's still a great deal of work to be done in the West on that issue before we start reconstructing Islam.
Posted by briar rose, Monday, 6 September 2010 5:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting replies, and I'm beginning to see the arguments that are weighing the burqa issue as a potential paternalistic nanny-state issue (Which, on consideration would be rather frightening), as opposed to an issue of opposition to wahabism and allowances or discouragement to its practice; or alternatively, that others might apply to someone wearing an offensive item of clothing, would (I'm not sure we actually DO that though).

On a side note, for either reason it was banned, what would you think would occur as a result (not on the assumption of what the opposition implies, but what YOU actually think).

For example, unless you actually believe the Burqa is only worn by a woman to avert being punished by her husband or male relatives (and I think its bull), what do you think would happen if it were banned?
I doubt it would further alienate them (as I'm convinced they were never remotely endeared to westerners to begin with).

But what do you think?
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 6 September 2010 5:44:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given the outright disrespect and independence that some feminist have towards their husbands I rather think the sign of respect and submission is far less harmful than the godless feminist dogma. Nothing irks the feminist more than to see a happily married woman is successful at home, successful at work and is happy to accept the spiritual headship of her husband. Feminist dogma is rarely good for harmony in a family and is usually supported by emasculated males who have no courage of their convictions. NO wonder so many men are now diagnosed with depression.
Posted by runner, Monday, 6 September 2010 6:24:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To ban or not to ban, that is the question.

Touché, I know.

If people want to ban the burqa to eliminate oppression of women...wouldn't the oppression simply be manifested in other ways?

If you want to ban it to prevent extremism...how do you eradicate the extremist thoughts in people's heads?

If you want to ban it for security purposes because you can't see the face or because anything can be hidden under it...what do we do with costume parties or ski fields (where face exposure is usually a no no) and some of the more fashionable over-sized sunnies out there or priests' robes, nuns' habits or costumes in general?

Driver's licences, security checks at airports etc are instances when we should require clear face visibility. Why can't we work from here and have a debate free of the I'll-scare-you-more-with-my-argument claims.

http://www.currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Monday, 6 September 2010 6:51:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jorge is right. We should just start by banning the actual face being covered by ANYONE, when in banks, airport security, or any other secure area where faces need to be shown. This would include balaclavas, bike helmets, and all face veils.

Other than for security reasons, people should be allowed to wear what they like. If these devout burqa-wearing Muslim women are forbidden by law to wear a face-covering in public, then I would worry that they would be restricted in their movements even more than they already were!

I also believe that these Muslim families who move here permanently will surely eventually come to see our way of life in Australia, and the reasons why they moved here rather than stay in a middle east country, may change their strict views and allow their women to uncover their faces.
Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 6 September 2010 7:21:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar Rose:
<<How many of us engaged in this argument actually know a woman who wears a burqa? How many of us have asked her why she wears it? >>

If you want to speak to woman wearing the niqab you could go to the forums section of Muslimvillage.com, speak to them there or invited over here. Just a suggestion which i thought may be worth making.
Posted by grateful, Monday, 6 September 2010 7:33:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We should just start by banning the actual face being covered by ANYONE, when in banks, airport security, or any other secure area where faces need to be shown. This would include balaclavas, bike helmets, and all face veils."

Such rules have been in place for many years, in any case. Motorcycle helmets have been banned in banks since the early 80s, for instance.

If you're going to ban the burqa for security reasons, and I support the ban for that reason alone let alone the misogynistic ones, think about who or what you might find under a burga. How would you know, exactly? The garb has already been used in several robberies (without the religion of the perpetrator being publicised). Burqa is the pefect disguise!
Posted by viking13, Monday, 6 September 2010 7:35:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those sheltered souls who have not yet taken succour of the freedom of our enlightened Victorian law.....let me make this point.

Displaying a Swastika in Melbourne, perhaps outside a synagogue or.. even holding one up in public, is probably very illegal. Wearing apparel with swastika's on them is probably very illegal.

I say "probably" because it would depend on a test case of our Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, which prohibits behavior in public which could incite hatred against people based on their race or religion.

To me, the Burqa has just as strong a symbolic value of hate/oppression/victimization, as the Swastika does for the Jew.

FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
One only need to imagine the feeling of a Byzantine when the bejewelled crown of the Empire..Constantinople...fell to the Muslim Turks. Even they had never seen anything like the Haggia Sofia Church and it's magnificence.
Quickly the Muslims turned this emblem of Christendom into a symbol of defeat, disgrace, denial of human rights, humiliation and began to proclaim "Allah is one God and Muhammad is his prophet" from minarets constructed onto the building.

300 yrs INVASION
Thereupon the Turks began a 300 yrs invasion of Europe..to rape, pillage, conquer and contrary to the Nat Geo doco today which said "recruit" boys for the Jannisary corps.... (I almost puked when I heard that) no..they TOOK TRIBUTE from each conquered land of 500 boys annually ripped from their families to be brainwashed and trained as expendable mercinaries in the service of the Sultan. Child Soldiers anyone?
Soon we remember "Liberation Day" for Vienna.. September 11th 1683
On that day..the Muslims were stopped and turned back. It's also why we speak English instead of Arabic.

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the last day...Until they are subjected" Quran 9:29
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 6 September 2010 8:12:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps some 'civics' lessons would be in order.

We might say "any symbol which incites hatred" must be banned.

Ok...

Yamulka ? Offensive to Arabs.
Cross ? Offensive to Arabs/Muslims
Burqa ? Offensive to Christians and educated atheists.(such as Proxy)

But 'which' of these actually incites hatred of others because of their race or religion ? It's an important point and must be based on, and connected to, legitimate connotations of the particular garment/symbol.

Yamulka ? nope..Jews were mostly victims not oppressors (Arabs and Socialists might disagree on this)

Cross ? "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another"

Burqa ?

-"Dominate the world in the name of Islam" (9.29)
-"Jews and Christians are cursed because of their beliefs" (9:30)
-"Kill Jews so the last hour can come" (Muhammad of Islam-Hadith)

Yep..I know which symbol/garment is the only one to incite true hatred... do you?
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 6 September 2010 8:19:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
agir <"Yep..I know which symbol/garment is the only one to incite true hatred... do you?"

I am sure that showing any of the symbols you mentioned in some countries of the world would incite hatred- as would showing the Christian symbol of the cross upset some people in some countries.

However, I know for sure who tries to incite hatred towards Muslims on this site AGIR - It's YOU!
Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 6 September 2010 9:23:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear grateful
Thank you for that link and I will certainly follow through.
If you know of Muslim women who would be willing to speak about this on the forum, I for one would be very interested in their point of view on both wearing the burqa, and the West's debate about the garment.
Posted by briar rose, Monday, 6 September 2010 11:13:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I said, MAREELORRAIN, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

However, others are equally entitled to hold a different view.

Imposing your view on others, over a piece of clothing, would appear overly oppressive.

All your "reasons" appear entirely self-generated - imagining how the wearer may feel, how their menfolk feel and so on. Sounds more like a projection of your own emotions than anything particularly logical.

Amicus has precisely the same view. He doesn't like something, so he wants public reinforcement of his prejudice:

>>we should not tolerate this behavior in our society and we "feel" sickened knowing this is what's going on - I know I feel sickened by it because I "feel" sickened by it.<<

How... sickening for you.

This is Australia. We value our freedoms. At least, I thought we did.

>>your logic is that this intolerant religion can impose whatever it likes because we should be tolerant to all aspects of other peoples lives<<

My position is that we should not feel it necessary to impose "whatever we like" on other people, because we should respect the legitimate choices that they make.

>>...why should we tolerate this hideous practice by a few of the extreme intolerant of this world? Because it offends your precious sensitivity and world view?<<

My "precious sensitivity" remains untouched. I do however expect a different level of tolerance to exist here in Australia, than in countries whose government feels that it can control what its citizens wear.

>>Your attempt to reduce this debate to appear trivial<<

I don't consider personal freedom trivial, Amicus. Far from it. I appear place a far higher value on it, for example, than you.

Talking of "precious sensitivity"...

>>To me, the Burqa has just as strong a symbolic value of hate/oppression/victimization, as the Swastika does for the Jew<<

Hmmm. A garment worn by women, who according to some people here are powerless to make a decision on their own, is in your eyes, a symbol equivalent to that whose wearers practiced mass murder.

I think it might be time to get those eyes tested, Boaz.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 9:52:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pericles "This is Australia. We value our freedoms.", and of anyone else here?

No of course not, not if it affects our sensitive nature, it's perfectly acceptable evidently for part of the community to impose medieval traditions on other Australians .. after all "they have their freedom"

I don't necessary want to legislate against a specific article of clothing. I can see the issues with that.

I'd prefer social pressure on the people enforcing this tradition on women, but clearly this falls within their freedom to impose whatever they like, because "we're so tolerant"

Yes, it makes me sick .. I'd rather do something about it then pick apart anyone who is against this hideous practice - but for some it's just the intellectual sport of defending our "freedoms', even if it means a whole community is bound up in ancient and out of place religious laws.

but, hey, feel free to continue to defend the rights of those who impose these things pericles, after all .. you have your freedom.

So this is intelligent debate is it, that we get people who want to defend freedoms, even if it means defending the people who impose their will to make other people less free.

Fine by me, good luck with the debate, though it seems anyone who does not like the "intellectual" POV is attacked, nothing new there - this country becomes more like America every day.
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 10:19:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This comment was posted on my Facebook page in relation to this article, and I thought it worth putting into this debate. The person who left the comment spent some time in Malaysia and draws on the experience of interacting with women who wore the burqa.

"i have a better acceptance now [of the burqa] - i don't feel anymore it is subservient/repression - but a power - the majority i was around and close contact with were where the eye area only were showing and these women were made up beautifully its hard to explain they all seemed very in control sophisticated, mysterious and powerful - i now no longer look at the covering of the head (whether it be coloured scarfs or full black) as men controlling women - women"
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 10:36:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner
How are feminists disrespecting their husbands?

The fact that you would condone the forced wearing of the burqua over mutually respectful relationships shouldn't surprise me.

I don't believe any deity constructed in the image of perfection could condone such a thing. That is the trouble with fundamentalism, it allows moral relativism on any matter that one does not agree and to suit one's own prejudices or beliefs. Often nothing to do with religion.

From what I have read about Jesus (if he existed) is he condoned respect and equality for all men/women and I really cannot see a movement to force women to wear a particular item of clothing as a positive move for mankind.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 11:22:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar Rose:
the article was posted here: http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/60805-intelligent-debate-will-respect-women-wearing-the-burqa/

One way or another you may get some feedback.
salaams
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 12:14:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus, you're still in the grip of a visceral, emotional response to something that is foreign to you.

>>it's perfectly acceptable evidently for part of the community to impose medieval traditions on other Australians .. after all "they have their freedom"<<

C'mon. Who is imposing "medieval traditions on other Australians"?

You are taking this far too personally.

And to make my position perfectly clear, I would be the first to protest, if anyone tried to impose their "medieval traditions" on you.

>>...clearly this falls within their freedom to impose whatever they like, because "we're so tolerant"<<

Now you're just exaggerating. No-one has the "freedom to impose whatever they like", as you very well know. But they do have the freedom - that you want to take away - to make decisions for themselves on what clothes they wear. Within the limits of legal decency, of course.

>>...for some it's just the intellectual sport of defending our "freedoms', even if it means a whole community is bound up in ancient and out of place religious laws<<

I don't tell you what community you should belong to, or what arcane rituals you may or may not indulge in. So long as it is legal and decent, go for it.

Why should you grant yourself the privilege of telling others what to do, just because it "makes you sick"? (Heaven help us if vegetarians are given that power).

>>we get people who want to defend freedoms, even if it means defending the people who impose their will to make other people less free<<

Don't forget that last part is an assumption on your part. I'm assuming that the burqa is a choice made by women, for their own reasons. I most definitely do not support the idea that men should be allowed to force women into wearing it.

>>it seems anyone who does not like the "intellectual" POV is attacked<<

You seem to believe that defending individual freedoms is somehow an "intellectual" point of view.

I suggest to you that it is just as important to non-intellectuals.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 5:01:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican I was pointing out that in my opinion the worse of the 2 evils (being some forms of feminism and enforced burqa wearing) is actually radical feminism. I was not endorsing enforced burqa wearing. IN my opinion it is a disgrace when women try and wear the pants and demand their way all the time in a marriage. Much of feminism is about selfishness and me and ignores respecting the wishes of the husband or the best interests of the children. Many men have been emasculated by dominant feminism.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 5:32:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner: << IN my opinion it is a disgrace when women try and wear the pants and demand their way all the time in a marriage. >>

Ban women from wearing pants! They just want to impose their will on their husbands. Banning them from wearing pants will prevent such sickening repression of men, just like banning the burqa will prevent repression of Muslim women.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 5:39:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So ...... In Australia, anybody can wear whatever they like, within decent limits.

Unless they are women, says Runner, because women should not be allowed to wear trousers, since he finds the concept of female equality or power offensive.

And unless they are Muslim women, write many posters, because they should not be allowed to wear either burkas, niqabs or full-body gowns (and presumably hijabs ?) these being unpleasant and offensive in the sight of these other people whose opinions, it seems, are supposed to vastly outweigh those of the Muslim women themselves about what they might wear.

So in equal and democratic Australia, we have a hierarchy ? Men above women, of course, but also pretty much everybody above Muslim women ? The rest of us can all dictate to them at will ? What next, the clothes police ? Come back, Himmler, all is forgiven ?

For Christ's sake, give them a break. If they wish to wear their hijabs, leave them alone. If they are forced to wear hijabs by male relatives, in order to be able to leave the confines of their house, then tolerate it and support their right to wear whatever they like when the opportunity arises. But don't penalise them for some crap cultural practice based on some Neolithic notion of female inequality and danger, and thereby validate male power over them. Don't presume to dictate to them. Leave them be.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 6:10:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Many men have been emasculated by dominant feminism" says Runner.

I'm really taken by that statement. It sounds like something Tony Soprano might have said.

"What is it with women?" he demands of his female psychiatrist. "You ask me how I feel, I tell you and then you beat me round the head with it."

Are Runner and Vanna friends? They both seem to have a big concern about radical feminists de-masculating blokes.

On the question of the burqa, I agree with Suzeonline - there are occasions when everybody must show their face for security and identification. Outside of that, its nobody's business what anybody wears as long as they wear something in public.

I don't want a government that legislates clothing - that's really scary, worse than a whole truck full of radical feminists wearing pants.
Posted by briar rose, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 7:57:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

AN AUSTRALIAN BURQA & NIQAB

.

The burqa and niqab appear to be an inexhaustible inspiration for articles on this forum.

As there is still no consensus in view, I too take the liberty of re-posting my thoughts on the question.

Provided commonly accepted public codes of decency are respected, I see no reason to ban any particular form of wearing apparel, dress style, hair-do, face make-up, body decoration, tattoos, jewelery, etc.

This freedom, like all others, should be preserved.

However, just as total nudity in public is generally considered an unacceptable form of sexual exhibitionism, the burqa and the niqab are considered an unacceptable form of religious exhibitionism in all western civilisations of predominately Christian culture.

I propose that we do not pass a law banning Islamic dress. I propose that we pass a law specifically authorising it under certain conditions.

I suggest that a parliamentary commission be established to define what is aesthetically and legally acceptable as Islamic clothing in Australia.

The athorisation should apply to consenting adults only.

A specific Australian design and tissue could be defined, with a limited range of colours. Head and shoulders should be visible. The tissue covering them would need to be perfectly transparent.

The burqa and Niqab in their traditional form are out of context in Australia. They simply do not fit our life style.

As any manufacturer knows, even the most successful products need to be adapted to suit the local market.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 9:13:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner<"Much of feminism is about selfishness and me and ignores respecting the wishes of the husband or the best interests of the children."

Selfishness and me? What the...?
Are you serious Runner, or are you having us all on just to upset us ladies?
You must be living in a time warp!

As I have said before Runner, I am sure you would be much more comfortable living in a strict Muslim country where most men actually do rule their women!
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 9:53:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've often thought that runner would make very good Muslim of the Wahabist variety.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 10:31:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ writes

'I've often thought that runner would make very good Muslim of the Wahabist variety.'

and yet CJ is always the first to label critics of Muslim immigration as racist. He is the defender of the faith. I would say your links with the Greens and the violence that goes with those with leftist views puts you a lot closer to the religion of 'peace' than my worldview.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 7 September 2010 11:53:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"women wearing the pants". What does that actually mean?

Aren't marriages about love, compansionship, mutual decisions mixed in with a bit of sacrifice and compromise on both sides, whether done consciously or not.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 9 September 2010 12:17:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy