I find that the very last sentence is the key to this topic.

Men should take responsibility for their actions/reactions to the presence or sight of womans body---and to human bodies altogether.

By the way, men universally respond to the sight and presence of a beautiful woman--no exceptions. We all treat beautiful women differently to ordinary women and uglies.

The burqua is a device used by sex paranoid double-minded patriarchal religionists to control women--full stop.

The only way that we can all live together in reasonable peace & harmony is through compromise where possible. The wearing of the burqua is a good example of how this could work. I am uneasy about the burqua but respect the religious and other personal reasons for wearing it so I say to the wearer "If you agree not to wear the burqua, I will support to the hilt your right to wear the Hijab at ALL times of your choice". Both sides have to give some ground but neither has to capitulate completely. This matter is well discussed by John Gray in his essay "Modus Vivendi" published in his recent collection "Gray's Anatomy".

In general, I agree with Legal Eagle on this subject.

With respect to the argument that we should ban women from voluntarily wearing the burqa because it represents the oppression of Mslim women, exactly the same argument could be applied to high-heeled shoes.

Just because someone's attire makes some others "uncomfortable" isn't a good enough reason either. Surely the same argument could be applied to many other kinds of apparel, including (for example) baseball caps worn backwards, facial piercings, various uniforms, political t-shirts etc etc.

On the other hand, there are many situations in public life where wearing a burqa might be reasonably regarded as a security risk to others, such as in banks, travelling by air etc, or where it would obviate the ability to identify the wearer. It would be quite reasonable to deny access to those situations, to those who insist on wearing the equivalent of a tent.

But actually banning the burqa? No, if we want to be able to continue to claim we live in a 'free' country.

"At a recent conference in Brussels organised by the British Council and a European think tank, most European Muslim women made clear they had no sympathy for women wearing burkas. The women scholars pointed out there were no Islamic texts in favour of the full veil, the younger women — even those with headscarves — denounced the burka as alien and unacceptable in Europe."

The burka uproar
By Shada Islam
Saturday, 08 May, 2010
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/the-burka-uproar-850

I agree with the sentiments expressed above and have no sympathy with women who wear the burqa in Western democracies.

It is ridiculous to assert that on one hand that such women are doing it by choice and at the same time claim that their 'men' are making them do it. Equally, if they are so damn stupid as to walk several paces behind as well then good luck to them, but that is their choice and there can be no compulsion to do it.

Very few Muslim women wear the burqa in Australia and even if some say there might be one or two who are being 'compelled' by 'men' to wear the garb, the solution is as easy and quick as a phone call to the cops to tell the bully to pull his head in. However 'some' are likely to number fewer than the numbers on one hand if there are any at all. Fact is though society cannot always save people from themselves, they have to make an effort too.

Of course the burqa is a feminist issue, but in the West it is a feminist storm in a tea cup where some would like to milk the 'men controlling women' angle for all it is worth.

However the worst of all in this silly, frivolous business would be the media who flog this scare-mongering, dumbed-down sensationalist pap to people who have forgotten how to think for themselves (perhaps they never did).

If a few attention-seeking women want to rock around Oz in potato sacks so be it but really, truly, who cares? Frankly, it is not worth banning.

Speaking with the hearing impaired in mind, I would urge those who wear the burqa to consider those less fortunate. Many hearing impaired (including my Mother who was totally deaf) depend on lip-reading and facial expressions to engage in conversation. It is impossible for a deaf person to converse with a person whose face is covered.

As one needs to ponder - there are justifiable limits to free garb in a free country if it's only free for some.

What legal eagle failed to mention is that there is a fourth reason women wear the burqa, and that is because they feel compelled either by their husband's religious feelings or those of the extended family.

The question which is difficult to answer is how many of those now wearing this dress would really be grateful if it was banned, and they could wear normal clothing without recriminations?

Where it has been banned the protests have been very few.

France is right burghas are madness , particurly in a hot Country like OZ.
How do we know the Burgha clad ? on the bus,tram etc is not Osama Bin Laden with 250kg of semtex strapped to his body.

Identy is important , have a look at your Drivers Licence or your Passport, can you imagine a wanted poster with a figure wearing a Burgha displayed ! Or better still an astonishing Blond with tresses trailing to her lissome hips wearing a micro mono kini and a burgha on the beach; enough to make Allah giggle ?

There is no place for the burqa in this modern world, certainly not in a mainly christian western democracy like Australia, where every citizen whether male or female is considered to be equal and who can certainly show their face or bare their head without consequence.
The burqa is a relict of a middle eastern religious edict put in place when women were considered to be inferior to men and, even today, are still considered so to be in almost all muslem countries.
One reads in australian newspapers statements said to be from muslem women who are said to wear the burqa, that the wearing of this garment is a public statement of their beliefs.
The obvious modern answer to this muddled thinking, is that the real reason for wearing of such an unhygienic, uncomfortable garment is perhaps just to publically send a message that the wearer is a muslem and proud of the fact, nothing more or less. Without a doubt: "Ban the Burqa"!

There is only one issue here which is valid in regard to the Burga

"Does it facilitate crime by offering a convenient disguise for men and generally obscure identification?"

Answer..."yep" and the runs are on the board.

I add the cultural aspect that it is simply way too far removed from acceptable aussie broad spectrum ways of doing things, but that's a separate debate. (and very hard to legislate)

I've never seen a bloke dressed in a nuns habit trying to roll a 7/11 so the argument "nuns are allowed wear their weird clothes" does not apply. you can still see their faces.

A good idea after the post from from Protagoras.
When dealing with someone wearing a burka ,pretend to be deaf.
Point to your ears and don't answer or give them anything.

"As long as a woman consents to wear a burqa willingly and does not harm herself or others by doing so, then she should be allowed to make that choice"
Does a woman walking naked down a main street in Australia do any harm to herself or other persons? If so what harm?
Does a woman wearing a burqa down the main street in Australia do any harm to herself or other persons? If so what harm?
"Ultimately, it’s a woman’s choice, and if she believes that she has to wear such clothing according to her religion, then she should have the freedom to do so. Part of religious freedom is that people are entitled to wear clothing which is an outward sign of their inner faith, and which professes their modesty before God "
So if a woman wishes, as part of her religion, to walk naked then it is OK?

blairbar: << So if a woman wishes, as part of her religion, to walk naked then it is OK? >>

IMHO, if a woman or man wishes to walk naked down the street for whatever reason, then that should be permitted by law so long as they're not actually harming anyone.

However, that's the opposite situation to that which is being discussed here. I'm yet to read in this thread a reason proffered to ban the burqa that isn't thinly disguised Islamophobia or plain bigotry.

I have to say that I'm pleased to be in agreement with Cornflower on this issue :)

I am partially deaf and use 2 hearing aids. Even so I am highly dependent on being able to see a persons mouth because that is really the only way that I can 'get' the consonants being used. Vowels I can get Ok by ear so long as there is not a very big accent.
I had not revisited UK for nearly 30 years until I went back about 3 years ago. Whilst at Heathrow looking for our luggage on the carousel a lady in full burkha asked me a question. I think she was English to judge from the intonation. However I could not understand what she was saying at all. Eventually she got angry for some reason or another. Her husband, with mandatory beard, stood about two meters away and was as useless as proverbil appendages. It is a reflection of the fatuity of the situation that the woman wearing a mobil tent got into a (presumably paranoid) paddy with me when the whole thing was 100% her fault. The burkha should be banned.

CJ I agree that if someone wants to wear a Burqa, they should be allowed to (with the possible exception of in banks for security reasons), but the converse is also true, that if they don't want to they should not be compelled to do so.

The few surveys that have been done have indicated that a significant portion of those wearing these garments are doing so because they feel compelled to do so.

The question is whether you are giving more women free choice than you are removing it.

Legal Eagle - DON'T confuse religious 'obligation' with cultural practice. The Koran directs both sexes to dress modestly and women to cover their heads - hair, not faces. This is almost identical to Orthodox Jewish custom.

The hideous oppressive garb that some CULTURAL groups demand female members wear from puberty onwards is about tribalism and concepts of ownership of and control over women.

I don't have problems with Muslim women wearing headscarfs or even traditional dress. The scarf fulfils religious obligation and the garb merely attracts curiousity. Not so the burqa.

Don't go spruiking 'freedom' as defense of this odious garment. If, for example, a New Guineau tribesman migrated and expected to go naked bar traditional penis gourd and a few feathers because that's his cultural attire, there would be protest. He would be severely censored at best, arrested at worst. If I wore a t-shirt with really offensive wording or print, I might attract the attention of the law and certainly refused entrance to shops, cafes etc. If I went naked I would be arrested.

In essence we don't have freedom to wear or not wear what we like. No-one can claim to be able to drive safely from behind a screen of gauze or netting. It is impossible to communicate effectively with a sack of cloth. It isolates the wearer from wider society and restricts association even within her own ethnic group.

We can accept this grossly un-Australian custom under the dubious banner of political correctness and anti-discrimination OR we can say (like the French, Dutch and Belgiums)"NO" not acceptable here.

Those who still think it OK - why not allow female genital mutilation (circumcision) and child marriage? How about the odd stoning death for adultery? There is as much fake justification on "religious grounds" as for the burqa.

We wouldn't want our new Australians traumatised by having to adapt and adjust to Australian law and custom, would we? No, that would be an unrealistic expectation going by some of the idiots in our midst

I'm definitley no oil painting myself but those dimwits who force women et al to cover up like that should be castrated the moment they express this mindless stupidity & then forced to wear a rag covering their silly countenance.

Please, somebody help me but for once I have to agree with CJ Morgan.

Good article; I agree with most of it. I admit that I still have to think about some things.
Basically, people should wear what they want to wear.

I have a problem with the argument that it is justified to ban the burqua because women's husbands or brothers force them to wear it.
But we don't know who wears it voluntarily and who is forced to wear it because the ones who are forced to wear it most probably won't speak out.

But, why would it be not OK for brothers and husbands to interfere with a woman's free choice of attire but perfectly OK for a government to do so?

Not that I can imagine that anybody would want to go around covered from top to toe in the heat of the Australian summer, increase the risk of getting rickets, never participate in sports but hey, if someone wants to be so nutty as to imagine it's required by some god, then we just have to let them be, since they do not impose on other people's freedom.

And yes I'd agree that there would be some occupations that cannot be open to someone who is not willing to show her face.

The foolishness of Western liberals using 'tolerance' as an excuse for cowardice in the face of the most intolerant of ideologies is beyond belief.

Bring on the new Enlightenment.

Mr Morgan says:

//IMHO, if a woman or man wishes to walk naked down the street for whatever reason, then that should be permitted by law so long as they're not actually harming anyone.//

Interestingly narrow definition of 'harm'... limited to physical ?

curious .. curious indeed.

PROTAGORAS.. u are on the money.. but now in enlightened Victoria the 'Equal Opportunity' commission can send a few of their stormtroopers/thought police out to rip off those discriminating Burka's :) How dare those Muzzies discriminate against the hearing disabled.

Helen...this is your Que! gooo Helen.

For a list of burqa bandits (partial, no doubt):
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/niqabs-and-burqas-as-security-threats
Can we expect an increasing diversity of burqa banditry here in Australia?
Something to look forward to!
Remember, if evil doubts start to arise,
repeat the mantra:
Diversity is good,
Diversity is good,
Diversity is good,
Diversity is good.
If doubts persist, repeat the above
until you return to that blissful trance-like state.

"IMHO, if a woman or man wishes to walk naked down the street for whatever reason, then that should be permitted by law so long as they're not actually harming anyone."

CJ - This is becoming silly because what would the ladies, wearing the burqa (and particularly their men) say about being subjected to nakedness on the streets? Nothing?

But perhaps you could take the 'do no harm' free-for-all bit further and allow citizens to walk down the street naked, engaging in a bit of harmless masturbation? How about that? Burqas, uncovered meat and DIY sex in the city - hilarious!

Yay - let's do it! A limitless array of freedoms for everyone except the significantly large deaf community and those with delicate sensibilities who can go jump - whingers!

STOP PRESS: Attention all bikies, Klan members and bank robbers: There is no longer a requirement to remove your harmless helmets, pillow cases or balaclavas when entering banks - good stuff chaps!

I'm quite fascinated by the specious arguments advanced by the burqa banners, in order for them to avoid saying why they really want to dictate what women can and cannot wear in public.

In particular, I find the argument that a few women wearing burqas is making life difficult for deaf people quite risible. How often is communication with deaf people actually impeded by the wearing of burqas? I imagine that the frequency is very close to zero.

I have a beard, which can make lip reading difficult. Should we ban beards, particularly given that many Muslim men grow them?

As for the discomfiting aspects of reduced eye contact, perhaps we should ban sunglasses as well?

The push to ban the burqa emanates from Islamophobic bigotry, but is dressed up in disingenuous politically correct terminology that conscripts feminism, security and even disabled people to its odious cause.

As for this, with respect to the fatuous example provided by one bigot of the illegality of public nudity:

<< Interestingly narrow definition of 'harm'... limited to physical ? >>

Perhaps Boazy can specify what harm of any kind is caused by seeing someone naked (and its corollary, what harm is caused by wearing the sartorial equivalent of a tent)?

'So if a woman wishes, as part of her religion, to walk naked then it is OK?'

Strangely enough many probably think this is part of the Greens religion. Many from PETA and environmentalist love nudity and violence.

Yeah, let's get rid of the burqa and, while we're at it, let's get rid of all religions as well.

This is the year 2010. What the hell are we doing still tolerating religious myths and superstitions (and the charlatans who promote them), ones that were part of primitive societies that existed thousands of years ago?

It's time we grew up, threw out the Santa Klaus syndrome, and became realists.

There's no god, no life after death. Get used to it!

CJ Morgan - I suggest there is little "harm" in seeing a naked person walk down the street or into the shopping centre or your business premises ... whatever.

There may be considerable "offence" taken. Does this count in your view? It seems sometimes that you consider the offence taken by one demographic over some "harmless" issue to be legitimate but dismiss the same indignation when expressed by a different group over matters of like importance - or lack of.

Stating a FACT: It is illegal to go naked in public here in Australia. It is also beyond argument that we do NOT have the freedom here in Australia to wear or not wear EXACTLY what we want. Concealing one's identity is generally considered a no-no for any other Australian citizen. You won't be welcome in the Bank, Service Station, Convenience store, Chemist etc with your full face bike helmut or balaclava you've been wearing for weather protection. The folk at the airport will likewise firmly insist you remove same.

As previously pointed out - the burqa is CULTURAL not religious but the religion card is played to justify its imposition on female members of some immigrant groups.

It is not inappropriate for Australia as a Nation with it's own set of laws, social mores and CULTURE to set limits on what is acceptable public attire. I and at least 90% of people I have spoken to on the subject believe concealing one's identity in public is unacceptable on grounds of security and cultural sensitivity. OURS!

CJ - if you were to relocate to another Country with a vastly different culture to yours would you expect to have to adjust some of your ways, at least in the public arena, to adhere to local custom or would you expect to be able to behave exactly as you do here?

I agree that government cannot dictate what people wear. Interesting to note that many posters here in favour of banning the burqa are among the first to scream "nanny state" when the government proposes more equitable distribution of wealth such as the tax on profits on the massive mining monopolies. But I digress.

I can't help but think of the limitations that wearing burqa places upon women, not only do they not get their daily dose of vitamin D, but also the limitations on choice of careers. For example, acting would be out of the question. Simply cannot imagine a Bell Shakespeare Production of Romeo and Juliet with the angst ridden Romeo uttering:

"Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight!
For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night."

To a Juliet covered from head to foot - what a sight indeed!

Or an episode of "Sex and the City" with the Gals dressed in the very latest from Tent City.

Religion is ridiculous. And don't just blame Muslims - look at nuns - Christianity holds no moral superiority on its treatment of women.

“I have a beard, which can make lip reading difficult.” Agreed CJ – particularly if the bearded one is a mumbler and Eyejaw’s post also reminds me of the bearded ones who’ve become frustrated because the deaf recipients of their mutterings could not understand a word they were saying.

In fact, the least favourite bearded mumblers of my mother’s were those who would resort to grabbing hold of her to yell in her ear, causing much pain. However, this problem can be resolved although it depends on the IQ of the bearded one. The deaf have many obstacles in life to overcome, without any thoroughly useless additions to make their lives even more distressing.

You have opted to possess a ‘holier than thou’ condescending criticism of your fellow Australians who disagree with you (the majority) but then Australians (new and old) are generally not sycophants to newcomers who flaunt unnecessary and disturbing customs which do not benefit the common good and this debate has nothing to do with religion.

Religions, regardless of one’s personal view of their legitimacy are provided special sanctions under law, however, the Quran and the traditions of Muhammad simply call on Muslims to dress modestly therefore burqas are not religiously prescribed and have no legal protection, as explained by my Afghan neighbour. Consequently, the burqa can be dumped in the same slop bucket as the balaclava though perhaps both could be resurrected annually for Halloween?

One of the most prominent Islamic women in Australia, the president of the Muslim Women's National Network of Australia, Aziza Abdel-Halim, endorsed the call for the burqa to be banned in public. That’s good enough for me and good enough for the majority of Australians, according to recent surveys.

So far, nobody has come up with a reasonable argument why the burqua should be banned. All they can come up with is personal dislikes.
I think that the burqua looks absolutely ridiculous and is restrictive but wouldn't want to be responsible for stopping anyone to wear it if it's their choice to do so.

If we ban burquas, which very few Muslim women who live in Australia may choose to use as an expression of their faith or as an expression of their cultural identity, then we should ban torture devices such as crucifixes around the neck, too, as well as turbans, sari, choli, salwar-kameez, Salwars, etc.
If we ban the burqua, then any other outfit or piece of jewellery that expresses people's cultures or religions should be banned.

Also, if we do want to ban the burqua, then we should start by informing new immigrants or tourists, that if they choose to come to Australia, then they are prohibited from wearing the burqua.
They would be then free to choose whether to come here or not.

The Muslim women who already emigrated to Australia were told that we are a multicultural society and that their culture/religion would be respected and that they would be given the freedom to express themselves in this manner.
It's a done deal.

Geez - some of you just don't get it! OR you use bogus 'religious reasons' as a launch for attack on all religious belief or accuse those who object to the burqa of being "Islamophobic"

The BURQA is a CULTURAL GARMENT designed to conceal every inch of a woman from view of anyone bar her 'owner', husband / father, and family members and approved associates within private enclosures.

The "Nanny State" already dictates what may or may not be worn in public.

I know a number of Australian Moslem women - many wear the hijab scarf and cover everything else bar hands and occasional sandaled feet. Though probably hot and uncomfortable, their face and therefore IDENTITY is open. They can study, work, intermingle with the wider community and therefore be part of Australia.

A woman in a BURQA however is virtually unable to work. Her garment literally excludes her from association or any real interaction with people beyond the narrow confines dictated by her keepers.

Despite my feelings about these consequences for a small but significent number of Australian women it's not my main argument.

The LAW requires every other Australian to be identifiable in public. Short of medical reasons and some worksites, this means an UNCOVERED face.
Furthermore Australian culture is inclusive and open. For most of us, trying to engage in any form of communication with a faceless 'sack' is extremely difficult at best and extremely confronting and offensive at worse.

Think Aussie girl in tee-shirt, shorts and sandals strolling through downtown Kabul or Riyadh? Modest by our standards but would the locals take kindly? Nooo! Harrassment / assault / arrest / imprisonment would be likely outcomes. What would be the reaction of average Australians including the 'apologists' in our midst? How about, "Well she would surely have been aware that her attire was not appropriate in that culture" ?

So WTF is wrong with Australians saying to burqa wearers and their 'controllers', we object to you hiding your face?
WTF is WRONG if we insist it is culturally inappropriate and breaches security protocols?
One LOGICAL reason please!

Protagoras...I'm warming to you :)

DAVID G "tolerating religious myths and superstitions"

You mean like the myth and superstition that "Socialism will solve the worlds problems and that the leading (scurrilously capitalist rich)Greens actually care about the environment" ? :)

CELIVIA

"So far, nobody has come up with a reasonable argument why the burqua should be banned. "

Hmmm.. r u reading all posts ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/06/2891505.htm

Do you regard this as
-unreasonable
-reasonable
-Media lies
-Just an isolated and insignificant incident.

Or. please tell me what statistical level of 'burka bandits' would trigger your outrage or at least acceptance of the idea they should be banned for this reason alone if no other good one can be found?

Strange..I recall from years ago when it was suggested that it should be banned because of men disguising themselves in them for robberies.. it was poo poo'd by quite a number of people who tend to regard themselves as absolute oracles of pc truth.

Now that it HAS happened..they STILL dribble their same pc rubbish as if it had not.
I guess that is what complete bigotry is made of "Don't confuse me with facts..I have my mind made up" :) It's like an endless loop.

Oh wait.. it happened again..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1277786/The-Burka-Bandit-strikes-Knifeman-raids-travel-agent-year.html

and..A-GAIN!
http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/burka-bandit-he.html

That endless loop is wearing thin :)

Enuf reasons yet?

By Legal Eagle>>
Should our own discomfort be a reason for banning the burqa in Australia?<<

It is the absolute right of anyone to wear anything they like along as it does not compromise existing indecency laws.

It is the sovereign right of a nation to implement laws for the common good and safety. Legislation should be put in place banning total body coverings from all state and federal offices. You cannot do any transactions with a govt department if you wear a sack to hide your face. They just knocked back such legislation in N.S.W.
A common sense piece of legislation that was knocked back because of political correctness, and more to the point political expediency in regard to protecting the ethnic vote.

Any security concerns can easily be allayed by regulation and practice, rather than legislation. I think that it would be quite reasonable for the burqa to be treated in much the same way as a motorcycle helmet or a balaclava, and that businesses, government agencies, airports etc are entitled to refuse admission to somebody who is unable to be identified because they are wearing a burqa. No need to change the law on that account.

Mind you, I've heard that men sometimes wear women's pantyhose over their heads to disguise themselves during robberies - should we ban the wearing of pantyhose?

As for taking offence - surely that is the responsibility of those who choose to be offended by a woman wearing a silly, but undoubtedly modest outfit. To say that because we allow governments to dictate that we must wear clothes for the sake of decency, it then follows that we should allow them to dictate what kinds of clothes we are allowed to wear, is utter nonsense.

I'm reminded of an old mate of mine who went through a Buddhist phase and went off to India to become ordained as a monk. When he returned, he duly wore his saffron robes into town. Twice. I figured he realised how ridiculous he looked.

I think that if the burqa is not made into a political symbol the way those who want to ban it would, it will ultimately go the same way in Australian society. If it is inconvenient and embarrassing to wear, I think that Muslim women will utimately abandon it - particularly since of course the great majority of Muslims will be increasingly secularised as they are absorbed into Australian society over succeeding generations.

P.S. dickie - I must be pretty bright then, eh? Not only am I aware of the potential problem, but I address it by trimming my moustache regularly. But I don't think the government should legislate to make it compulsory :)

divine_msn: << The LAW requires every other Australian to be identifiable in public. >>

Which LAW is that, exactly?

I am wondering why this whole discussion isn't turning around how moderate and progressive Muslims can be encouraged and supported in Australia. I assume it is because some just want to vent their feelings either way, which is a waste of time and descends into silly statements, nagging and abuse.

Tents for women, Sharia law and ignorant old buggers telling everyone what and what not to do must not appeal to a large majority of Australian Muslims, especially youth. Equally the greatest majority of people including the greatest rump of Christians - who are very moderate - support our secular State and rebuff bishops who would control them.

The change has to be led by progressive Muslims, it is unreasonable to think that it can be forced down from above. That sort of high-handedness just creates and strengthens negative beliefs in presently uncommitted others, leading to anti-social behaviour.

Obviously we should show religious tolerance and that is a given, but in what other ways can we show support for and encourage the many moderates in all religions, including Muslims? I really cannot see how we are getting off on the right foot by putting so much angst and invective into a sack worn by the few who will in all likelihood continue to retreat from change for the remainder of their lifetimes.

Dear CJ

A man wearing pantyhose over his head walking down the street suggests 2 things - either bad intent or mental health issues.

You would be reluctant to allow him through the door of your establishment I'd wager?
Even then there may be enough of the persons features revealed to make positive ID.

A walking sack aka burqa with unidentifiable person underneath would not necessarily arouse the same immediate suspicion especially amongst the scared of being 'intolerant' set. However as disguises go it's a winner and been used in commission of crimes here and overseas.

Yes it is very possible the burqa will become extinct over future generations of its current adherents provided 1) we don't get subsequent waves of burqa wrapped immigrants and 2) dominant males within these groups stop insisting on this 'protection of family honour'

Once again the religious comparision is made with Buddist robes. Burqa is cultural garb. Get it! Clothing designed to keep women safely hidden and isolated from the 'outside world' and closely controlled by the dominant male/s in their family along with arranged marriage, restricted education and vocational opportunity and so on. Unlike your Buddist buddy ...

Political symbol? Why not? What's wrong with Australia saying it's not acceptable to wear garb that completely obliterates your identity? Or even what the burqa represents is completely un-Australian, therefore unacceptable?

Tell me CJ - is it acceptable or legal to dress up and go about in KKK garb? That's a political symbol. Likewise wearing a heap of Nazi regalia might bring you into contact with law enforcement.

Regarding my comment about law, I haven't phrased that well and possibly inaccurately. I shall research further. Law DOES require any person to identify themselves to a Police officer or like authority and for purposes of confirming identity - licences tickets etc. Most of the burqa set object vigorously to this.

I have no objection to your beard CJ. Kept neat and clean, facial hair looks manly and protects the skin from a harsh climate. Quite culturally appropriate in fact!

AR,
Re the burqa bandits: criminals use all kinds of clothing, disguise and equipment to help them commit their crimes.

CJ made excellent points when he said,
"Any security concerns can easily be allayed by regulation and practice, rather than legislation...".
The pantyhose example is excellent.

Criminals also use false beards and moustaches, full face masks, and in countries with cold climates everyone walks around in public with faces covered up by balaclavas and scarves all winter long.

Not only do criminals use disguises and pieces of clothing to cover themselves but they use organisations, corporations and churches as a cover-up for their filthy crimes and tax frauds in a far greater scale than the handful of burqa bandits.

“When he returned, he duly wore his saffron robes into town. Twice I figured he realised how ridiculous he looked.”

CJ Morgan – Pot/kettle! Saffron robes do not conceal the face and every city has its eccentric characters and all the better for it. My favourite eccentric during my years in Sydney was a dear old lady dubbed “Bird’s Nest” who used to hang out in Hyde Park and around Elizabeth Street.

There is no relevance between the eccentricities of Australia’s characters and those who hide their faces in public, thus rendering security cameras, identification and the necessity for fluid dialogue among people, impotent.

You may find a warm and friendly man/woman underneath the burqa but who would know and the body language of a burqa wearer issues a grim warning for the would-be friendly citizen to "back off." As a result, the anonymous burqa wearer, bereft of any religious mandate to justify such practice, has the potential to reap what she/he has sown and has already incited unrest in several nations throughout Europe. Are you suggesting that all those nations are racist?

I really don’t know what’s happening to this country as there seems to be a recent spate of wanting to place restriction on what we wear. Be it a burqa or an “offensive” t-shirt during the World Youth Day event.

The real problem is that as a society we overly indulge religion and don’t place religious practices under the same level of moral scrutiny as everything else.

I have no problems with a woman wearing a burqa as long as she wants to and isn’t “obliged” to. As for the ridiculous argument that the wearing of burqas is a security risk then check out this article, “Dumb Rules”
http://www.mocs.com.au/pages/dumb-rules.php

As one of the now probably minority multigenerational Ozie citizens I am continually told I must not do anything that might offend any of our more recently arived population.

That's fine.

However, it should also apply that these new residents should not do anything to offend me.

I am offended by few things, but there a couple. One is that some of our recently arived folk make no effort to learn our language. Law & order is much harder to be applied in a population that most of our police can't talk to.

When I recently required some street directions in Fairfield, Sydney, I could find no one who spoke english. Further, some of those made it clear, by their attitude, that I was not welcome in "their" comunity. This is offensive in the country of my birth, particularly as I lived in Fairfield many years ago, when it was still half bush.

I am offended by the ostentatious display of a lack of respect of the country that has let them in. I am offended by the burqua, & can see no reason why I should be offended in my own country.

I don't know if whese women drive cars in this ridicules garb, but if they do, it would be very dangerous.

If an Ozie womam were to drive a car, go with her hair uncovered, or be caught drinking alcohol in Saudi Arabia, she would find herself in prison, damn quick. She is required to respect their laws, & traditions. About time we reciprocated.

I believe that a few people are misunderstanding the point CJ Morgan was trying to make:

Given the opportunity, people will adopt the mores of the country in which they live. Granted, the burqa is extreme, but so are balaclavas and if this entire debate is based on the probability of criminals adopting burqas in which to conduct crimes, then a big rethink is required. As has been pointed out, there are many easy disguises one can use to hide one's face. For example, panty-hose is easily stored in a pocket and one thing the would-be robber requires is speed and convenience. Anyone ever tried running in flowing robes, while carrying a load of cash or jewellery?

Where I live, I often see the saffron robes of buddhists, there are a number of ashrams in my region, they do not cover the face and no-one even blinks twice. In fact there is also an enigmatic man who dresses like a wizard and makes the most fantastic staffs which he sells in local shops. He used to live in urban Melbourne, near where I did and apparently I have followed him into the ranges. He causes no alarm and I think that the locals are rather happy to see this colourful, bearded and extraordinary man walking around. He will also give healing rituals for the price of a cup of tea - I know I digress but I value the diversity of interesting people.

The full burqa is as impractical as it is fun to deride, however banning them will not achieve anything more than inciting further hatred and resentment. Just because other countries are intolerant (like Saudi Arabia) doesn't mean that Australia has to follow suit. In fact the reason people prefer living here is precisely because we do not practise active, government sanctioned discrimination. Well, with the exception of tax-breaks for religion, which is far more costly to our society than a hapless thief trying to make a quick get-away in voluminous robes.

I agree with Severin and CJ.

The reasons given:

1. as an outward sign of inner faith. In essence, you are telling the world by your religious garb that you are faithful to God and proud of it;
2. as a gesture of modesty before God; and
3. to reflect a belief that the body should be covered because it is lewd and may incite lewd thoughts in others.

However - just to toy with another idea: I liked the author's comment that if men wore it too, it would seem less sexist.

In Western democracies, it is quite the norm for women to look over men and approach or signal to any that they find attractive. From the perspective of some religious leaders, then, those blokes might be said to be inciting lewd thoughts in others. Therefore there is reason to expect (from the same religious perspective that justifies women covering up) men to wear concealing garments.

The whole thing is a storm in a teacup. It will be a miracle if it's seen anywhere in a couple of generations. I can see all sorts of ways that various types of social pressure will send this garment down the same path as nuns' habits.

Btw: I once worked with someone who worked on contract in the ME and she always said she liked wearing a burqa. Tedious pressure from males sounds to have been about the same (she was even spat on at times by random men; so maybe that's par for the course for women in some countries) but she liked that she didn't have to think about what to wear or keeping up with dictates of fashion. Personally I think we can achieve the same without resorting to wearing a burqa, but it was interesting to hear about the experience and POV of a Western woman who'd lived elsewhere for a couple of years.

Severin.>>Just because other countries are intolerant (like Saudi Arabia) doesn't mean that Australia has to follow suit. In fact the reason people prefer living here is precisely because we do not practise active, government sanctioned discrimination.<<

How is Saudi intolerant? They are a Muslim country ruled by a monarch and governed by Sharia law. It is "their" cultural and judicial system, and unlike the old Soviet bloc, as a citizen if you don't like it you can leave. What you fail to appreciate is that their system is as culturally alien to the west as ours is to them. We reel back in dismay at their laws, and they look at street level criminality in our communities and laugh.

Middle Eastern countries do not have problems with youth street crime as we have in the west. They have a broken window policy when ensuring the security of the greater community; they police their laws, and are pro active in preserving their culture. Exactly the way every sovereign nation should be, and stupid Australia is not.

Regarding your comment “the reason people prefer living here is precisely because we do not practice active, government sanctioned discrimination". Consider this, the Muslim immigrants who have reached minority numbers in western cultures all have raised the issue of Sharia Law being incorporated into the existing judicial system. Be careful of what you wish for, and appreciate a society such as the Saudi's, they are covering their own behinds, unlike stupid Australia and the bleeding hearts.

A little more pro discrimination for "our" culture from our elected representatives is what is needed. As I said re the burqa, wear whatever you like, but no sacks covering your face in government offices, financial institutions, schools, or whilst driving.

Pynchme>>The whole thing is a storm in a teacup. It will be a miracle if it's seen anywhere in a couple of generations.<<

With some respect, you really have not got a clue. This culture does not give up its customs as easily as we in Australia do. Unlike our customs that have a heritage of a couple of hundred years, their culture has lasted for thousands. If we aussies went to the middle east en masse we would be dressing like Arabs within a generation. The burqua will always be a component of Muslim society to varying degrees as long as the culture prevails, once again, unlike ours.

Sonofgloin

As a woman, I find some restrictions of Sharia Law extremely intolerant. If you are male you may have no problems with Sharia Law. You have also taken my comment out of context, because I then went on to demonstrate Australian Law's discrimination against non-religious tax-payers.

I do not wish Australia to become even less tolerant than it already is by dictating dress-codes.

<"The whole thing is a storm in a teacup. It will be a miracle if it's seen anywhere in a couple of generations.">

Sonofgloin, I can see where I failed to describe what I meant.

I was referring to the burqua in Australian society.

There are lots of reasons why it will be a rarity, if seen at all, in Australia within a couple of generations.

We don't need to do anything like banning; social pressure will take care of it.

Pynchme>>We don't need to do anything like banning; social pressure will take care of it.<<
>>There are lots of reasons why it will be a rarity, if seen at all, in Australia within a couple of generations.<<

I am not advocating banning the wearing of any clothing, other than face covering garb in government offices, banks, schools, and while driving.
But there will always be a segment of Muslims whose religion will over ride social derision or assimilation in regard to their cultural traditions. They came in burqas in 1970, and I can go to half a dozen suburbs today and see women in burqas, Pynchme that is forty years, the couple of generations you mentioned to assimilate has come and gone.

Aaaa'll a say it again....

the only issue here is LAW .. if we make a law banning it for whatever reason..it's game over.. end of story.

Australian law (though the Human Righs Commissions are fighting this tooth and nail for their green socialist masters George Soros and Maurice Strong) always has to trump 'Human Rights' law.

Freedom of religion has nothing to do with it... aint a theological issue I'm afraid. just a democratic and legal one.

It would only be a 'theological' issue IF.. our law is subjected to Human Rights law 'AS interpreted' by certain liberal elite bottom feeding slime.

This will definitely be a federal and state (Vic) political issue.

I must pick up a comment made earlier by a poster to the effect that because Australia has a policy of multiculturalism migrants have the expectation and a right to import their own traditions.

I disagree with that and so would the overwhelming majority of Australians, whether they arrived here recently or not.

It's one thing to keep traditional values and customs such as the (oft cited) special foods and festivals, but keeping an old custom that is based upon violence or subjugating some of the population through forced marriage, blood feuds, vendettas, sexual mutilation, or killing your own family ('honour' killings) is another thing entirely.

So of course sonofgloin is making a very good point when s/he says that Australian governments are weak in maintaining our customs and culture - or even our laws. For example, child marriage is still practised and with authorities turning a blind eye to it, despite the certain damage it does to girls and the laws against it.

None of that is at all surprising where both major political parties are dismissive of community consultation on matters of crucial significance, preferring the advice of 'consultative' bodies of their own choosing. The advice of the unelected and unaccountable membership of semi-governmental bodies like the Australian Human Rights Commission should not be allowed to take the place of (sadly largely unused) democratic anenues and processes.

It is not surprising then that some are concerned that Australian ways, customs, beliefs and values are up for grabs and there is government support of 'diversity' means incremental change in directions that are probably at odds with what most Australians, old or new, might want. We seem to be following the UK experience of introduction of Sharia Law by stealth, which few would support if it was ever put to a vote. The question should not arise in the first place in a country that claims to be secular.

With weak unrepresentative government I can see why some see the burqa as the thin edge of a thick wedge. It is still not worth a ban.

Cornflower>>sonofgloin is making a very good point when s/he says<<

Cornflower, me Tarzan not Jane.

sonofgloin

Of course, sorry, carry on.

I'll say it again for those who continue to CONFUSE the burqa as a garment proclaiming religious faith .....

THE BURQA IS A CULTURAL GARMENT. It's origins are believed to be from tribal Afghanistan and Pakistan.

IT'S PURPOSE IS TO COMPLETELY OBLITERATE THE FEMALE PERSONA IN PUBLIC. Women in this culture "belong" to either Father or Husband and in the absence of either, a close male relative will act as keeper. Her immediate family and close female associates will be the only people permitted to see her 'uncovered'.
Some women undoubtedly wear it 'willingly' as they have been brought up to accept it - like children in cults accept the lifestyle and dogma. Some - I'd guess more likely those born here, undoubtedly would like to shed it. But it won't likely be the woman's own decision ....

I am deadset sure that most of the posters have absolutely no idea of the lifestyle associated with this odious garment.

However security concerns are legitimate. If motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, bandanas tied across the face etc are deemed security risks then so is the burqa. If the identity of a person must be established for whatever reason - legal, medical, travel etc, the burqa is a problem.

On top of that I reiterate - the burqa is culturally inappropriate in Australia and we need make no apologies for saying so and banning it in public. It has just as sinister overtones as KKK robes though most of the 'danger' in its case is to the wearer.

You can also be pretty sure that if it is not at least censored and wearers legally obliged to lift it back when their identity needs to be acertained or under same conditions others must remove helmuts, head covering etc that the custom will continue. Want an example - Great Britain. Mmmm the poster country for multicultural bliss ...NOT

A few thoughts.
- I communicate regularly on OLO, by email, by phone, by text messages etc. The lack of body language does hinder communication but it still happens.
- It's my impression that muslim women who are traditional enough to wear the full face cover are unlikely to be spending a lot of time in conversations with strangers, driving, having paid employment etc. Possibly some exceptions but for the most part many activities which are the norm for most people are not so normal for them.
- The full coverings seen like an exaggerated version of the sentiments which have made Fernwood successful. In most other areas we respect other peoples rights to choose the level of privacy they prefer unless there are compelling reasons to not do so.
- The government does already play a role in regulating people's attire which provides legal legitimacy to the idea that "that the body should be covered because it is lewd and may incite lewd thoughts in others" or that parts of the body are somehow offensive. Not an idea I particularly like but it's there.
- Giving extremist muslim's a symbol to rally support around does not seem all that smart. Ban it and it's power as a symbol becomes important.

R0bert

R0bert

Well said - an excellent summary of points made here - above and beyond the extreme ones.

The burqa will go the way of the whale-bone corset - both limited women physically (in the case of the burqa; limits communication) and both are/were a health hazard.

They don't bind women's feet in China any more, do they?

You're right Severin, they don't women's feet in China any more. Of course, that is only because the government made it illegal, I guess they banned it, you could say.

Hasbeen

I would posit that 'foot-binding' became culturally unacceptable long before the dictatorship of communism.

After all, corsets were not criminalised.

A question; why would you prefer to give extremist fundy Muslims another 'cause' to rally around?

As I have noted, restrictive clothing for women is being seen more of an anachronism as more women are regarded as equals. Even those women who favour the stiletto heel, tend to wear runners before donning the injurious shoes. Personally, I believe that certain attire is best worn in the bedroom - but that's just my personal choice.

I'm reminded of the two suicide bombers dressed in burqas who, last month, entered a camp and killed 41 refugees and wounded 62 others who had fled to 'safety' in the north west of Pakistan.

Scores of children have been indoctrinated and coerced into wearing the burqa to become suicide bombers so what sane Muslim would wear a WMD to the supermarket?

The problem with Islam is not merely the tyrants who’ve hijacked the burqa, but the average Muslims who've failed to denounce these atrocities, retreating into self-pity and victim hood.

Protagoras,
What the?
Muslims didn't denounce violence caused by extremists?

If you google you will find that hordes of muslims denounced it, but it's just not something the media focuses on!

Oh no! They rather stigmatise all muslims for the actions of a few.

Protagoras: << The problem with Islam is not merely the tyrants who’ve hijacked the burqa, but the average Muslims who've failed to denounce these atrocities, retreating into self-pity and victim hood. >>

Nice to see that dickie's dropped the disingenuous argument about the supposed problems of the deaf communicating with women in burqas, in favour of her real Islamophobic agenda.

divine_msn: << If motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, bandanas tied across the face etc are deemed security risks then so is the burqa. If the identity of a person must be established for whatever reason - legal, medical, travel etc, the burqa is a problem. >>

None of those items of clothing are illegal to wear in public. However, businesses, government agencies etc quite reasonably require that they are removed before the wearer is allowed into their premises. As I and other have suggested, treating the burqa the same way is all that is required.

I don't like the burqua or what it stands for from my Western POV, but rather than banning the burqua which would be a great intrusion by government on dress code, why not just ban the FORCED wearing of the burqua and where there are the usual security considerations already discussed.

No matter what we might think of the cultural/religous significance of the burqua, banning an item of clothing is only divisive and goes against secular democratic thinking.

It is no different to some of the unusual dress codes pushed by some Christian sects demanding women to wear head scarves or where they are not permitted to cut their hair.

It is bizarre to me that some cultures and religions see modesty in terms of hair and face coverings, however these are matters for those who follow the religion. More and more Muslim women and men are also calling for the burqua to be banned and who see it as a distorted interpretation of the Koran - as representing the extremes of Sharia Law. In more secular Muslim countries like Turkey the burqua is not forced on women.

I see it as very much a matter for Muslims, particularly Muslim women, to sort out for themselves. People forget that most Muslim women do not wear the burqua.

I can see a good reason to ban the burka in court
A woman wearing one could commit perjury and then when caught out
could say "It wasn't me M'Lud !"
And who could swear it was her ?

If allowed would I be allowed to give evidence in a motor cycle helmet ?
I think the comment of the husband of the woman fined in Italy says it all;

"My wife will have to stay in the house, I cannot allow other men to see her !"

It is this attitude that makes Moslem men rape Australian women.
They are perhaps genetically unable to control themselves or it
perhaps related to a significant amount of cousin marriage in their
community ?

All I can say is it makes me feel very uncomfortable and tempted to
berate the woman for wearing it.

Celivia

The same day that the burqa-clad suicide bombers murdered 41 in Pakistan, Muslim women in Quebec protested a ban on face coverings amid Quebec's public debate over how far governments should go to accommodate religious customs.

Muslims wearing a niqab at the protest said: "We personally would never attend university if they tell us to take off our niqabs so they're making us become illiterate," So it’s their way or the highway!

And what would our university lecturers say to Australian students attending our halls of learning wearing a balaclava? ‘Suspension?’

So not only is the West ‘racist,’ it is turning Muslims into ‘illiterates’. However, while our Islamic sycophants here insidiously suggest that their fellow Australians are racist, it is of some comfort to find that last year, the progressive Muslim Canadian Congress asked Ottawa to introduce legislation to ban the wearing of masks, niqabs and the burqa in all public dealings.

‘The MCC said, not only is the wearing of a face-mask a security hazard and has led to a number of bank heists in Canada and overseas, the burqa or niqab are political symbols of Saudi inspired Islamic extremism.’

http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20091008.html

“What the? Muslims didn't denounce violence caused by extremists?”

Celivia - Several Muslim leaders have compromised their sincerity by the 'but’ or ‘because’ excuses when they denounce the actions of extremists and there are examples of that in Australia to substantiate that assertion – just ask!

Must be tough, being so ashamed of your wife, that you have to cover her head, before you let her out.

Or is it, that if you completely cover any woman [or boy] friend you take out, no one can testify, or claim you were with a lady other than your wife.

Need to lighten up, here is Burka Blue,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Y-sw89qTY

There are times that I am very proud of this country and the recent responses to the burka issue by the leaders of our political parties has been one of them.

Their downplaying or dismissal of the idea of legislating about people's garb was to me essentially what the overarching ethic of this country really is about and they have reflected it well.

The fact that European countries have taken a different path is surely indicative of a latent part of a very discredited history that still rears its head in various guises. This is one of them.

We don't need any of that poison here. We are Australian and most of us are prepared to give one and all a fair go.

I recall John Faine the ABC presenter talking about his trip through Morocco. He went to a market to buy some local wares. At a stall he was served by a burka clad woman. He decided to sleep on the asking price so said he would be back the following day. When he returned he was greeted by a woman dressed in a very Western manner. It turned out this was the same woman. Quite surprised he had to ask why she had been wearing the traditional garb the day before. The answer, she had then planned to visit her grandmother straight after work.

I now am hearing of some Australian women who, although not Muslim traditional or otherwise, are planning to 'burka up' on the odd occasion to show support for the rights of their Muslim sisters. Just sympathising with the underdog.

Well I will be proud of them too.

Really, all in all, what a bloody great country this is.

csteele,
<<We don't need any of that poison here.>>
You seem to be confused about which is the poison.
Not really surprising.
Black is white,
up is down,
cause is effect,
Islam is peace.

Dear Proxy,

Thank you.

Aaaahl say it again.

The Burqa is a security issue for Australia, not a religious one.

It's an issue of LAW and democracy.

Just like a workplace can stipulate 'yes' or 'no' to certain types of apparel not being acceptable.

Just so a democracy can determine what is lawful in public places.

A full face covering has facilitated armed robberies and various bombings. That alone should convince the skeptic of the need to enforce facial exposure.

Arguing with those who see it otherwise is as futile as their own ideologically driven position :)

Soooo.. let's all head-em up..move-em out and get out there knocking on doors to expose the madness of such positions prior to the next election.

DID YOU KNOW...(this continues to amaze me) young people around 20 simply do NOT know what 'communism' is... they don't have the slightest clue.. I've found 1 in about 10 surveyed so far who does.

But I'll bet they know about the minor blip on humanities 'genocide' count "The Holocaust"
I say 'minor' only in relation to the Communist 'scorecard' which is many times multiplied over the 6 million or so Jews killed.

Holocaust 6million......Stalin/Mao/Pol pot 50million+

.


PUBLIC RELATIONS

.

Public relations defined as the interaction of an individual with his or her cultural and social environment is of vital importance to both the individual and society.

Tensions arise in the relationship for all sorts of reasons. What may be considered acceptable wearing apparel is just one of them.

In a relatively egalitarian society such as Australia which respects the basic freedoms of opinion, speech and religion, any tensions that may arise in the relationship are rarely attributable to actions by the State.

They are more often due to what society rightly or wrongly considers as deviant behaviour on the part of particular individuals or, in some instances, of groups of individuals.

The role of the State is, inter alia, to assure that the relatively egalitarian nature of our society is maintained and that the basic freedoms of opinion, speech and religion are respected.

If it were to become apparent that the wearing of the burqa or the niqab by certain individuals poses a greater threat to those values than the outlawing of them deprives such individuals of their basic freedoms, then the duty of the State would clearly be to outlaw such wearing apparel in public.

Naturally, what consenting adults do in private is of no concern of the State.

In the private domaine, the duty of the State is strictly limited to the protection of all individuals under the age of eighteen as well as that of non-consenting adults.

.

CJ Morgan has again descended into assassinating the characters of those who don’t play by his rules. In a fit of petulance, he implies that I am an Islamophobe and an agent of deceit, however, by the age of four, I was proudly riding with the admirable and highly regarded Afghan cameleers in outback Australia which rather demolishes his attack on those he regards as his intellectual subordinates.

I recall a similar group of bleeding hearts who screeched ‘racist’ and tried to halt the talk about the emergence of Middle Eastern crime in Australia too.

These sycophantic hearts appeared to care more about not upsetting relations with its immigrant population than about protecting its own citizens - well until the weedy leader of one racially motivated gang was gaoled for 40 years but not until he and his brothers-in-sin had pack raped 50 un-Islamic ‘Aussie pigs.’

The idea that there is a single pure Islam followed by everyone and which is only responsible for good is ridiculous.

Citizen debate about, and objections to the wearing of the burqa in public are no more racially motivated than the debates on the fundamentalist Christians who want to stop teaching evolution in education, the school Principals who secreted hundreds of thousands of government educational funding to Pakistan, the Witnesses’ refusal of blood transfusions for their dying children or on polygamists who insist that it’s their God given right to marry multiple wives in the West.

Having explored more deeply into the issue of the burqa, I now question the need for a ban on burqas in Australia since religious leaders in Islamic states are also banning the wearing of face masks. Perhaps they've conducted a survey into just how many innocent Muslims have been slaughtered by the burqa-clad coward.

Surely these Islamic leaders are far more progressive than the snarling Australian citizen, desperate for a pat on the head and a handful of Goodos from fundamentalists seeking dominance in Western nations?

It could be interesting to have a national burka day, where every man, women and child wore the stupid, hideous, derogatory, obsessive ridden, woman down grading, revolting, chauvanistic, ugly and downright ridiculous rag.

The muslim women that say they choose to wear it for whatever reason are either brainwashed (a typical religous tact) or are trapped in the 'victim' syndrome - too scared to say otherwise. It is for this reason it should be banned.

No free thinking, independant and proud woman would ever choose to wear in public the above described rag = a mobile prison.
All the reasons for the banning are good one's IMHO, 99% of the reasons for the non banning are idealistic, downright silly and have no pity for these poor unfortunate women caught up in their archaic and quite sad beliefs.

The difference between the nuns, budhists etc garment and the burka are the reasons behind it, the symbol of the belief. It's this belief that is fundamentally flawed.

Protagoras: << In a fit of petulance, he implies that I am an Islamophobe and an agent of deceit >>

Oh come on, dickie. You shifted your argument for banning the burqa from the bogus grounds of communication problems for the deaf to linking women wearing the burqa in Australian with terrorists in Pakistan. That's classic Islamophobic vilification, and it's hardly "character assassination" to identify it for what it is. Not to mention the gratuitous link to "Middle Eastern crime".

I and others have presented cogent arguments as to how the issue can be dealt with via regulation and social pressure, rather than the draconian measures advocated by some fools who want to provide radical Islamic fundies with a political rallying point. You, on the other hand, seem to be chopping and changing your argument all over the place.

There's an interesting perspective on the issue from an Australian Muslim woman in today's "Punch", if you're open-minded enough to read it:

<< Feminists should back off the burqa bashing

by Sara Haghdoosti

If a woman walks down the street in a mini skirt and someone calls her a slut, feminists will be quick to object. However if a Muslim woman walks down in a burqa then many feminists are happy to concede that she is oppressed, submissive and brainwashed.

Unfortunately many feminists still believe that no Muslim woman could ever choose to wear the veil of her own free will.

As a Muslim feminist I find this infuriating, condescending and patronising. >>

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/feminists-should-back-off-the-burqa-bashing/

proudmary,

I don't believe that the women who wear the Burqa in the West are forced to do so. The overwhelming evidence from their own mouths and from non-Muslim advocates who support them is that they do it out of choice.

It is only stereotyping and political correctness that cannot accept that women might be just as fundamentalist as men. Looking at other religions and taking Roman Catholicism as an example, it is the women who are the guardians and strength of Catholicism in the home and in the parish. It is the mother who sends the child to Sunday School, nags the family to go to Mass and argues for the religious education through Catholic schooling. The church might well be a patriarchy but it is strongly supported by the matriarchy in the home.

I was watching a recent program about blood feuds in a particular country where the point was made that while the men are the physical agents of killing, the blood feud tradition was in fact maintained by the women.

It is a weak excuse for women in Western democracies to say that men make them do anything when the reverse is often true. More importantly, we all have choice and should be responsible for our choices - that is being adult.

“Oh come on, dickie. You shifted your argument for banning the burqa from the bogus grounds of communication problems for the deaf to linking women wearing the burqa in Australian with terrorists in Pakistan.”

C J Morgan- That presumption would only be endemic to a manipulative mind when in fact I shifted no such thing but simply included other negative aspects of wearing the burqa, apart from the difficulties the deaf have in communicating with a face rag – not that those ‘bogus’ obstacles for the hearing impaired would concern callous people like yourself.

Furthermore, my pseudonym happens to be ‘Protagoras’ not ‘Dickie’ and as I advised another spiteful gentleman from the backwoods, who also believes he’s in charge of this forum, if you object to my pseudonym, take your complaint to Graham Young, otherwise address me by the appropriate and approved pseudonym.

Should others wish to change their pseudonym it is actually none of your business and I don’t take kindly to your insinuation that I am posting under false pretences:

1. “Some great comments above. I've wondered a few times lately if Protagoras was you, Dickie, but your contribution to this thread has left me in absolutely no doubt! Reading your posts is like watching that show the other night - painful, but enlightening - and very valuable if we are going to help bring about change. Thank you as always.”

Posted by Bronwyn, Monday, 14 September 2009 11:26:11 PM

2. “Greetings Bronwyn and thank you for your kind words. Dickie, my magnificent (and once feral) feline has gone to his secret place where he runs for fun, instead of running for his life. It was an appropriate time to change my pseudonym.”

Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 12:12:04 PM

Do try to keep up C J Morgan.

proudmary,

I don't believe that the women who wear the Burqa in the West are forced to do so.

You don't believe? in other words you just don't know. There are books out there, written by many muslim women who say the exact opposite.
Oh! let them wear the ugly thing, our gaols simply could not cope with all those men that would suddenly start raping them if they suddenly started shucking them.
Plus we need the stones for our gardens and roads, not wasting them being turfed at raped muslim women.

Whatever, Protagaras - I wouldn't want to remind you of your dead cat. It doesn't matter what you want to call yourself, your earlier comment to which I alluded was classic Islamophobic vilification.

What did you think of Sara Haghdoosti's article?

proudmary, "You don't believe? in other words you just don't know."

In fairness you should have quoted all of it rather than give a misleading impression of what I said. Here it is in full, "I don't believe that the women who wear the Burqa in the West are forced to do so. The overwhelming evidence from their own mouths and from non-Muslim advocates who support them is that they do it out of choice."

Who is going to stone them in Australia? Call the cops!

There seems to be a lot of people who have it in for the moslems.

I wonder why ?

Bazz,
<<There seems to be a lot of people who have it in for the moslems.
I wonder why ?>>
Apart from the fact that the Islamic imperative is global submission to Islam?
Can't imagine.
Any ideas anyone?

"Buddhists don't wear burqas"
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/25/do-clothes-make-the-muslim/

Hi there Protagaras,
I think you are reading too much on that Jihad Watch site.
Seriously, do you want to tell Australian muslim women how to dress/not to dress because of suicide bombers in Pakistan?
The bombers are the destructive people, not the burka-wearing women.

Look, I too think that the burka is a ridiculous outfit, that someone who believes that wearing it will make their god happy is a nutter, and that there is some security risk, but many other items are security risks, too, as was discussed before. Umbrella's and bags as well as the items already listed.
And all religions and cults are equally loopy, so why single out Islam to constantly find fault with?

Like Steele, I'm proud that Australia is a multicultural country, too.
We invited emigrants to come here and promised them that they could maintain their culture.

Celivia – Obviously you have read Jihad Watch – I have not, though I’m about to do a google, however, the mere title tells me it’s a one way street therefore what’s the attraction for you?

“The bombers are the destructive people, not the burka-wearing women.”

A unique oxymoron Celivia – I’m sure you’d agree? And you are missing the point. The burqa is not worn to appease Muhammad (PBUH) -the religious argument is fatuous and in your selective argument you have obfuscated the fact that I no longer see a legal ban as productive.

The disagreements on wearing the burqa have nothing to do with race/religion which is what you are endeavouring to throw in my face but everything to do with welcoming backward Taliban Tom’s theocratic practices and pretending that they are compatible with modern thinking individuals in democracies.

However, in Australia we recognize the equality of men and women therefore, let’s all roll over for the burqa clad women who flaunt the face gear for no good reason and support our sisters by adopting the custom of wearing the face mask for:

1. Collecting little children from school - bugger the legal requirement for identification
2. Driver’s licence – photograph
3. University enrolment
4. Passport application
5. Telling the hearing impaired to get stuffed
6. Jury duty
7. Two fingers up at security cameras in street malls

And does it matter that in a free society we are expected to know if "this is a woman" or if "this is a man?” A free society happens to be interested in who a person is NOT but to appease the minority, let’s scrap the requirement and all conceal our identity - yay!

“And all religions and cults are equally loopy, so why single out Islam to constantly find fault with?”

Islam is irrelevant since perhaps more than 95% of the Muslim community in Australia do not wear the burqa yet you accuse me of discrimination. Nice try Celivia but against which religion/race do I discriminate?

Protagoras

Maybe I'm a bit slow on the uptake today, but are you in support of banning the burqa or not?

Your last post was more to diss Celivia than actually express an opinion and the reasons for it.

"Maybe I'm a bit slow on the uptake today, but are you in support of banning the burqa or not?

"Your last post was more to diss Celivia than actually express an opinion and the reasons for it."

Perhaps you ARE a bit slow Severin since there are now 84 posts on this thread with posters expressing an objection to the burqa (mine included) but you obviously have failed to read my recent ones when you ask if I support the burqa ban.

Your post is simply to diss me rather than contributing anything more to the debate. Pot/kettle!

Protagoras,
Firstly, whether muslim women choose to wear a burqa for a cultural reason or religious reason is none of anyone's business.
And some muslim women DO dress like this to appease their god.

I'm as confused as severin about your stance, because first you say, "...you have obfuscated the fact that I no longer see a legal ban as productive."

But then you strongly continue to argue why you are against the burqa as if you are in favour of banning them.

I don't 'really' disagree with you that much that there is a problem with burqa's and the security issues that you listed, but CJ already suggested how to deal with this.

"1. Collecting little children from school - bugger the legal requirement for identification."
Nobody is claiming that ID is unnecessary, special arrangements can be made. The school and burqa wearing women need to work something out- a private place to ID her, perhaps. Or voice recognition?

"2. Driver’s licence – photograph"
Agreed. If they don't want to oblige and be identified, then they should not be driving. Their choice though. No reason for a total ban.
Would finger printing work?

"3. University enrolment"
Ditto, private room to show ID, no need for a total ban.

"4. Passport application"
Same as 3. Still no need for a total ban.

"5. Telling the hearing impaired to get stuffed"
Fact of life is that the hearing impaired as well as the non hearing impaired are used to not be able to communicate with every person. Some mumble, others wear beards and moustaches, and many are unapproachable by nature.
I don't really know what to do about that. How many hearing impaired have a burning desire to talk to a burqa-covered woman anyway? I'm sure that there is a way to arrange a private meeting or a translator if the hearing impaired must talk with her.
If not, there are millions of others to talk to.

TBC

"6. Jury duty"
Yep see 3. Otherwise, same fine should apply as for refusing jury duty. No need for a total ban.

"7. Two fingers up at security cameras in street malls"
It's not forbidden to stroll the streets in hats and glasses, scarves around the face, balaclavas. Take gear off in banks etc. If not, they won't be welcome there. Find a bank that does welcome them- muslim bank or something. So there is no need for a total ban here either.

About the Jihad Watch site- I was under the impression that you got that article about the Pakistan bombers from there, because it was the first that came up when I googled it, and you didn't give a link with that quote. My fault for jumping to conclusions.

Maybe leave a link when you quote from an article, to avoid misconceptions.

Well said Celivia.

I think that Protagoras wishes to put into law how people should dress. I find such ideas not in line with the foundation of an equitable and democratic society.

After making an issue claiming I have not read his/her posts, surely Protagoras has read mine on this thread where I have derided the burqa; s/he would then be aware I am hardly a fan of the oppressive garb.

However if we do become apparel police because we are unable to identify people, then we must include in the ban; motorcycle helmets (can't tell who is riding a motorcycle), tinted windows in cars, hoodies and so on.

In conclusion, if Protagoras wishes to ban only the burqa then yes, s/he is discriminating against a particular segment of the population and, therefore Celivia, CJ Morgan and others are well within their rights to claim that Protagoras is bigoted towards Muslims.

Celivia, "We invited emigrants to come here and promised them that they could maintain their culture."

No, I do not believe that is the case but even if so it does not give carte blanche to introduce or maintain any tradition or practice. Would you support blood feuds too or child marriage? My earlier response refers:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10452&page=9

Because so few women wear the Burqa in Australia and there is no evidence of compulsion - from the advice of the women who are affected and their various spokespeople and advocates in the media - there is no compelling reason to ban the garment in Australia. It is a trivial matter and should be treated as such.

I do not support higher costs for public and private bodies to conduct special identification screening and I certainly hope that this doesn't also result in demands for separate wards in hospitals and limitations on medical staff who can treat them.

This is a secular nation and I do not see why the general public should be lumped with inconvenience and higher prices and taxes to cater for the demands of religious fundamentalists. Regardless of their modesty, no other public patients are conceded special treatment and nor could it be managed or afforded. User pays is the option for those who want chocolate with sprinkles, not the generic vanilla.

Tolerant, pluralistic and largely Islamic Indonesia is getting into the Muslimah clothing debate.

"ISLAMIC police in Indonesia's Aceh province have been issued with 20,000 long skirts and ordered to cover up women deemed to have broken Muslim dress codes, an official said on Tuesday."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/indonesia-islamic-police-to-carry-skirts-force-women-in-violation-of-muslim-dress-codes-to-wear-them.html

It's comforting to know that another bastion of women's choice is active so close to Australia.

Hi CF,

I agree with much you say, including “user pays” for the extra options.

Re secularism, our leaders are all too often overstepping the line that is supposed to separate church and state though.
Tax-free status of religions (except charity part), chaplains in public schools, and World Youth Day, to name a few examples.

In comparison, I don’t think it would cause much inconvenience for teachers or be costly for burqa-clad mums to quickly check the face inside a vacant room if there is no other person to pick up her child.

I wonder how they go about this ID checking in Islamic countries.

There is a hairdresser’s in this area that has curtained off a corner on the premises for the Muslimahs, so that the hairdresser is the only one who can see their hair uncovered.
Anyway, if things need to be especially arranged to cater for religious or cultural requirements and cost money, charges should apply.
Muslimahs might not be able to go to some places, but that becomes their choice.

And no, I’m not in favour of harmful or barbaric traditions and practices just because these are 'cultural'.

But a burka, as you said, is indeed a trivial matter.

Proxy,
don't worry, you won't be forced to wear a burqa if you don't like them.

Celivia, "In comparison, I don’t think it would cause much inconvenience for teachers or be costly for burqa-clad mums to quickly check the face inside a vacant room if there is no other person to pick up her child."

Ruling out male teachers and administrative staff, which causes more staffing problems and is discriminatory.

However having worked on school councils and P&Cs I would also say that it is really not on to have veiled people entering the school grounds in the first place. Children have been kidnapped and taken overseas.

The policy should be to drop the veil at the gate please.

Celivia

Thank you for your very lengthy response to my post but please advise the reason for ignoring this very relevant question?:

‘Islam is irrelevant since perhaps more than 95% of the Muslim community in Australia do not wear the burqa yet you accuse me of discrimination. Nice try Celivia but against which religion/race do I discriminate?’

Do you also perceive a racial discriminatory motive against the German people by those who denounce Hitler and his henchmen?

Now you suggest that we must deny the unphotographed burqa-clad the right to a driver’s licence but we can issue a passport on 'proof' of ID if relevant agencies go to the expense of providing a private room and additional staff to have a squiz at a few dozen citizens who will then reveal their face to the agency’s employee? But what if employees are only male? And what about the passport photograph Celivia? There isn't one? Is that not discriminatory? Can I travel overseas without a passport photograph?

Therefore, this mandate of yours must ensure that at all times (just in case of a burqa rocking up) a female employee must be present since the entire reason for wearing the burqa is to conceal the face from the lascivious male.

And by the way, voice identification is not foolproof either and I sincerely trust that the hairdresser to whom you refer, is female? I wonder too how our male employees will react to your mandate in the event of an elevation of burqa-wearers when the male employees are advised of potentially 'lesser' duties in areas of teaching, hairdressing, administration, law enforcement etc, etc? “Discrimination?”

No I think society will sort this out after all plus Immigration Departments around the world may diplomatically choose to be more prudent in its selection of Muslim applicants by granting permanent residency to those good people who do not cover their faces and who are more than happy to merge into Western societies without the desire to incite cultural polemics.

My dear Severin - I cannot see where Celivia has referred to me as a ‘bigot’ therefore, could you allow others to speak for themselves? Several Islamic leaders here and overseas, fail to see any societal benefit in the wearing of the burqa either, therefore, these Islamic leaders must also be ‘bigots?’

Those who call others bigots are the worst of all bigots. An example of this extreme hypocrisy is set by CJ Morgan, self-professed ‘working scientist’ where all who oppose his point of view are, and I quote: ‘bigots, racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, xenophobes, sock puppet trolls, bigoted prats' etc - the list is endless.

I once worked for the Jewish community and though I am a ‘devout’ atheist, I also worked for the Christian clergy for more than ten years. Many (not everyone) of these clergy are the most altruistic and tolerant people I have known, but you will be hard pressed to find my participation in theological debate – if at all.

Would be, Islamic Rottweiler, CJ Morgan, driven by a fanatical hatred of religion (except Islam), lurks on religious threads, resorting to personal attacks and abusing Christians (and anyone else who differs in opinion), precisely that of which he accuses others. He will dirty things up to attack these "forces of darkness” (except those dark forces lurking in Islam) as one can see on his bigoted attack on Anglican Deacon, Peter Selleck:

“While it suits your project to equate mythic activities with history on the basis that some deluded neolithic goat-herders told some stories about a guy who probably existed, to someone else who wrote them down, they have no more truth value than do the writings of Brigham Young, nor the voluminous ramblings of Roswell freaks etc.”

This is a ‘working scientist’ who spends his working hours on OLO, stigmatising those he perceives as "freaks and fanatics” and stigmatising anyone who raises current issues of concern on cultural practices. Alas, his only achievement to date has been the ‘goat-herding’ of the sycophantic ‘freaks and fanatics’ who slavishly support him.

Hi Protagoras - nice little personal attack there, with absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the burqa in Australia. I'm not a "working scientist", I'm a semi-retired anthropologist and small businessman.

You did get one thing right though - I do take some pleasure in exposing bigotry, such as that which you've displayed in this discussion and others. One thing I've noticed is that bigots rarely appreciate their exposure and often get quite nasty as a result, as in your case.

As an atheist, I have little time for any religion - but I do acknowledge the right of people to adhere to whatever nonsense they like as long as it doesn't detract from the rights of others. I have no idea what relevance you think my comment about Sellick's interminable dribbling have to a discussion about burqas, but thanks for digging it out anyway.

It does encapsulate my attitude to the "truths" claimed by religious nutters very well :)

C J Morgan - If the bigot's hat fits, wear it and my provision of the Selleck taunt was merely a grab sample of the abuse you spread on this forum. I am more than happy to provide a myriad of other abusive comments you have perpetrated on this forum, at your request.

And I note that you have gone from your claim of a working scientist to a retiree blah blah. For the sake of credibility, please be more consistent or better still, practise your memory pegs.

Protagoras, you have made comments in this discussion that are nothing short of Islamophobic vilification. You seek to disguise them by directing irrelevant personal insults at me and quoting me out of context.

Of course, there's more than a hint here of the pot calling the kettle black. Under your previous pseudonym of "dickie", you were pretty handy at dishing it out, as I recall.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=24850

Did you ever bother to read that article by Sara Haghdoosti?

“Islamic vilification”? Only in your deluded mind C J Morgan am I vilifying Islam since I was referring to the criminal element which has hijacked the burqa. Hypocrite’s ingratiation and nauseous blandishments to a specific religious community is offensive.

“Under your previous pseudonym of "dickie", you were pretty handy at dishing it out, as I recall.”

Indeed C J Morgan - I have a reputation for retaliation and also for defending myself from those who initiate the abuse.

In fact many of my more timid friends (including those from other nations, the hearing impaired and not least, dumb animals) constantly call on me to protect them from arrogant abusers like yourself.

Public comment on public safety will not be censored by the likes of you CJ. Nor will it be censored on issues of criminality within our borders. When state and commonwealth parliamentary committees publicly advise citizens that:

”556 suspects linked to Middle Eastern crime were arrested in 2007 and charged with more than 1,500 offences. The list of charges brought against the suspects in the 12 months to December include 281 charges for drugs, 126 firearms charges, 140 theft and fraud charges, 41 violence charges, and more than 700 traffic-related offences.

“Last month alone the the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad made 37 arrests and laid 124 charges. MEOCS has worked incredibly hard to take dangerous criminals off our streets, stop them from pushing dangerous drugs onto our children and threatening the safety of hardworking families”

then the public are invited to comment. Get it C J Morgan?

When Hansard refers to the Asian triads, Colombian drug cartels, Italian and Russian mafia and bikie gangs operating and infiltrating Australia, we do not hear your screechings of racial or religious vilification. Nor do we hear screechings of racial or religious vilification from our hard-working Asian or Italian communities who just get on with it.

The diatribe from a sooking twenty two year old Islamic feminist you ask? Yep get 'em while they're young and impressionable! What has an Islamic feminist to do with concealing one's identity, may I ask?

I wonder how many of those "Middle Eastern" criminals were wearing burqas?

Thanks for proving my point, Protagaras. Of course you have every right to comment on "Middle Eastern" crime statistics, but to introduce them into a discussion about women wearing burqas is vilification. There is no logical link between "Middle Eastern" crime rates in Australia and whether or not women should be allowed to wear burqas in public.

I saw a doco about this issue on SBS a while back, where one of the women interviewed was an Anglo-Australian convert to Islam who chose to wear the burqa for what she said were religious reasons. What relevance does crime among "Middle Eastern" Australians have to her?

<< The diatribe from a sooking twenty two year old Islamic feminist you ask? >>

You didn't read it, did you? The opinion of an articulate young Muslim Australian woman on the issue is irrelevant, I suppose.

The Anglo-Australian convert who chooses to wear the burqa is almost undoubtedly on a par with other unfortunate vulnerable individuals who get caught up in dangerous cults. They quickly become brainwashed and delusional in thought and no amount of logic or evidence can change their minds.

Wait .... oh dear! That sounds a little like one of the more regular posters on this forum ....

CF,
Oh you might well be right, perhaps I’m taking the security risks too lightly.
I’d be much more concerned about chaplains hanging around the school than about a woman in burqa picking up her child.
I’ll need to give this topic a bit more thought, but for most part I do agree that when ID is required, there should be no way out.

I just find this a hard topic and at the moment it all comes across to me as blown out of proportion.
A few burqa wearing women in Australia and people are scare mongering as if these are a main security risk in this country.
I mean, anyone could wear their gran’s favourite loose-fitting knitted jumper over a bomb-belt, in any bag could be a bomb waiting to explode. People dressed ala James Bond could hide a bullet-shooting pen. The clowns performing at Darling Harbour during school holidays could be paedophiles conspiring with the fire-eaters.
If you want, you can see danger and security risks almost everywhere.

Protagoras,
Have you heard of Godwin’s law?
Glad we’ve made it past this point!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

And noooo, I did not suggest that
“we can issue a passport on 'proof' of ID if relevant agencies go to the expense of providing a private room and additional staff …”
I agreed with CF that it could be ‘user pays’, remember?

I’m merely brainstorming to see if there can be a solution.

What I want to know is, if my ideas are so crap, then what is your solution or idea about security since (at least I *think* you're against a ban?

I thought CJ made the best suggestions so far.

Do you know how to improve on them if you don't agree?
It’s not like we're on the front bench, or that our ideas will be carved in stone. We can just play with ideas here, can’t we?

Celivia, "I’d be much more concerned about chaplains hanging around the school than about a woman in burqa picking up her child."

Why so when the chaplain like all authorised persons whose role requires them to be around children has had to get a blue card (or similar in other States), has a photographic ID pass, is scheduled to be on the grounds at the time and is recognised by all who see him. His head and face are bare.

Blue card system: http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au/employment/index.html

The education department in your State should be able to advise you on best practice for school security.

CF
I'm sure that all the child molesting priests had bare faces too. It's other body parts that they should've kept covered.

And it's not only that, but the advice they would give to young teenagers about anything to do with sex and contraception would certainly not be a balanced view.

When my daughter was in year 3 she suddenly wanted to go to the Anglican scripture class which her friend always attended, because she was bored by herself every Wednesday, sitting in a vacant classroom and having to do maths either far below or far above her level (as it would be 'unfair' to the kids who went to scripture if she would have extra practice or god forbid, learned something.
She came home upset because some red-faced, glass-eyed woman in a mean voice told the kids that they would all go to hell and burn forever if they would steal from others.
Seriously, not making this up.
I went to the school and asked why they pull psychopaths off the street to teach scripture.
Then my daughter 'chose' to go back to do the boring maths again rather than listen to this utter nonsense.

Look I'm not saying that people should go into schools all covered, but just that a bare face doesn't always mean normalcy.

“Have you heard of Godwin’s law?”

Yes I had heard of Godwin’s law Celivia so no excuse, it was rather trite of me, I’m sure you would agree - cringe!

When can I expect a response to my question on my alleged discrimination against Islam?

“You didn't read it, did you?” Wrong again CJ since I did read the piece of jabberwanky you provided and I also took note of your own ambiguous nonsense: “ but I do acknowledge the right of people to adhere to whatever nonsense they like as long as it doesn't detract from the rights of others.”

Hellooooo…C J Morgan – the burqa is notorious for detracting from the rights of others and did you know that the occupation is being blamed for the forced wearing of burqas in Iraq?

http://www.equalityiniraq.com/press-release/59-a-statement-by-organization-of-womens-freedom-in-iraq--abroad-representative-on-international-womens-day-8-march

Of course your Sara abuses the freedom provided to her by the West to promote the burqa and is fortunate enough to have the liberty to take such means to gag her opponents and publish snow jobs on the worldwide subjugation and tyrannical oppression of women who are forced to wear a veil. Her feigned concern and infantile indifference to the suffering of others is noted.

This subjugation of veiled women is perpetrated by the same monsters who kill an estimated 5,000 women in honour killings every year. Sara Haghgoofy and her sympathisers believe they can now subjugate the West into incorporating into its daily life, the burga - a brutal tribal custom and a true symbol of the forces of evil that prevails in the very regimes from which they have sought refuge:

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw_legislation_2009/Expert%20Paper%20EGMGPLHP%20_Sherifa%20Zuhur%20-%20II_.pdf

However, respected Islamic leaders around the planet are pleading with women to abandon the burqa while the precious Sara promotes it!

This silly pontificating ‘prat’, whose article you praise, likened the West’s objection to the burqa as:

“just as offensive as claiming that any woman who chooses to engage in heterosexual relationships has been duped by the patriarchy.”

Ummm……grow up girlfriend! Get real CJ!

Protagoras

You have illustrated your disgust with the Islamic religion - a disgust I share along with similar regard for the other ME religions.

Yes, women aren't treated with anything approaching respect or equality in many predominately Islamic nations.

Therefore, given that Muslims constitute 1.5% of the overall population of Australia, that's 300,000 people, half of whom are male, leaving 150,000 females of whom maybe 10% wear burqas (and that's a very generous percentage - I suspect the figure is actually less) giving a total of 15,000 women wearing the full burqa at most.

In conclusion you favour a law banning 15,000 people from wearing a particular item of clothing, that for the most is worn voluntarily by these women. Many Muslim women have spoken of the importance to them of wearing the burqa.

While you are advocating freedom of dress for the Muslims, are you also advocating freedom of dress for other religions, such as the Exclusive Brethren where women are expected to always wear a scarf on their heads and ankle length skirts or dresses?

Where exactly do you want this dress law to apply? Only to Muslims or across the board for all religions. Would you ban Orthodox Jewish women from wearing wigs? A wig may be an effective disguise and is also an insult to the dignity of women.

You do focus only on one particular religious group - this could explain why people such as CJ or Celivia think you are somewhat bigoted.

Protagoras,
Yeah I suppose it can be fun to mention Hitler in heated discussions.
I don't find it annoying; it entertains me. On the Brian Holden thread, someone also used that Godwin's Law.

Can you just tell me, loud and clear, whether you are against a ban or not? I am still confused.

It's like this, but correct me if I got it wrong:
you say that after exploring the issue of a burqa ban, you now question the use of a ban in Australia.

But then you still continue to find reasons why a ban really would be justified and go on about the evils of Islam that are not even relevant to Australian burqa wearing muslimahs.

So I don't think I am very much out of line to say that you discriminate against Islam.
But you are free to correct me if I'm wrong and explain why you do not discriminate, so I can understand.

I DO get your point of view about sex equality, and I feel the same way IF the woman is forced to wear the burqa. But muslimahs in Australia might choose to wear the burqa- how would you know who wears one voluntary or not?

We do not need to nanny muslimahs.
Besides, if a man wants to oppress/subjugate his partner, he doesn't need the use of a burqa to do so.

‘You have illustrated your disgust with the Islamic religion....."

Severin – I have not and how many times must one reiterate - 'speak for yourself only!' Your active manipulation of facts, your abuse and the retreat to argumentum ad ignorantium reveals the gurglings of one in possession of one half of one sensory neuron.

“Disgust with the Islamic religion?” It is difficult for the intellectually impaired to understand that the burqa is not a mandate written into the Quran and is not part of Islamic law or religion. I do not support any custom which has been exploited for division, hatred and murder.

Subjugation, oppression, deprivation of liberty and honour killings of defenceless women are not a ‘religious’ practice but a cultural phenomenon and it happens to be a global issue occurring in non-Islamic countries too. Catch on? I thought not!

And I really don’t give a fig if 15,000 women in Australia want to wear the burqa provided everyone else is encouraged to wear a face covering including balaclavas, pillow cases as well as the burqa. The freedom must extend to bikies and organised crime gangs particularly those not already in possession of a criminal record.

All Australian women should consider adopting the burqa if they wish to save thousands of dollars on cosmetics and fashion garments. Just imagine not having to buy that designer labelled dress for the wedding of the year where one could rock up to gala events in one’s PJs or how about those skanky trackie daks?

“While you are advocating freedom of dress for the Muslims, are you also advocating freedom of dress for other religions, such as the Exclusive Brethren where women are expected to always wear a scarf on their heads and ankle length skirts or dresses?”

Severin – I visualise your face (pun not intended) and I see SLOW and SILLY!

This thread: “Going Burqo" is irrelevant to scarves and long dresses but poorly-constructed trolls are the dim-wits who induce lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless.

I think Protagoras' recent rants are probably the sort of thing that Legal Eagle had in mind when she wrote "going burq-o".

You are not allowed to wear high-heeled shoes on construction sites or into Railcorp work areas (eg. around active rail lines inside the safety fences): if you turn up in high-heeled shoes or other inappropriate footwear (eg. thongs) in these situations you are not allowed into the site.
People wearing motor bike helments are required to take them off before entering banks, 7-11s etc due to hold-up concerns. This ban on motor bike helmets in banks occured because criminals presumably did hold up banks with motor bike helmets on to avoid recognition by security cameras.
There is no need to "ban the Burqua", despite many people feeling uncomfortable about it (I feel uncomfortable when I see women in very high heeled shoes - as I can't help thinking about the damage they are doing to their feet and ankles): but clearly there will be legitimate limits on where you can wear a burqua. And apart from these limitations, 90% of employment situtations will not be possible for a burqua wearer - though possibly you could get a phone headset under that thing - so maybe a phone-call operator position is possible? I have been told that all burqa wearers in Sydney are fulltime stay-at-home mums: that's certainly believable. The check out ladies in Woolworths near where I live are hijab-wearers.

Going out in public means that you are identifiable. If you are identifiable then there is an obligation on others to also be identificable by showing their faces. If we all wore masks then society would be a very miserable place full of distrust and fear. I have no problems about symbols of religions. I do have a problem about masks. It is to do with the fact that bank robbers often wear balaclavas.

So if you want to wear a Burqua then do it with others who do not mind if you are anonymous. If you must wear a Burqua then show some other symbol that tells me who you are - not what you are.

So people who wear Burquas could also wear their names prominently displayed. If they fail to do this then they should be fined.

We will then see how long Burquas last.

LOL, CJ :)
Oh something else funny- did you see another use of Godwin's Law directed at you by formersnag, in the "gays seeking asylum" thread?

Protagoras,
"...the burqa is not a mandate written into the Quran and is not part of Islamic law or religion."

The koran asks people to dress moderate.
The koran and bible are so full of contradictions that anyone can cherry-pick bits that they 'need' to back up their belief or opinion.

That's why you find Christians on OLO who happily vilify homosexuality 'coz it's a sin in the bible, while they conveniently ignore the text that tells them that wearing two different kinds of fabrics is prohibited.
Next time I'm in a discussion with Christian homophobes I'll ask them what they're wearing.

Not only are these holy books full of contradictions, they can also be interpreted in many different ways.

The term 'moderate' can be interpreted whatever way one wants.
A nudist might find that dressing in a budgie smuggler is quite moderate.
If we start dictating to religious people how to interpreted their holy books, we will have to preach to them till the cows come home.

So, women who choose to dress in a burqa and say that they do this to appease their god by dressing as moderately as possible. Crazy, but I'm certainly not going to tell them that I am a better interpreter of a holy text than they are.
If the burqa is their interpretation of "moderate dress", I mean... who gives?

Celivia – I have concluded that a ban on the burqa would be counter-productive but probably not for the reasons you imagine:

1. Women will be locked away by fanatics

2. Fanatics feed off Western ‘religious’ repression.

3. As in Europe, the burqa clad in Australia will appeal any bans and then breach the laws of the land if they’re unsuccessful. Every year thousands of women - such as the unsuccessful Leyla Sahin, the plaintiff in the European Court of Human Rights case, screech 'discrimination!' and find themselves in trouble for refusing to remove their hijabs.

“ But then you still continue to find reasons why a ban really would be justified and go on about the evils of Islam that are not even relevant to Australian burqa wearing muslimahs.”

I remind you that you oppose a ban yet you can also justify the ban by ridiculing the burqa:

“Look, I too think that the burka is a ridiculous outfit, that someone who believes that wearing it will make their god happy is a nutter,.”

A 'nutter?' Careful Celivia because you are vilifying 'Islam', are you not? Pot/Kettle?

Are you suggesting that because I now oppose the ban, I should be gagged because I cite reasons why I prefer not to witness its use in society? Go turn the thumb screws elsewhere Celivia.

I will continue to denounce fanatics in our midst who subjugate and oppress women under the name of Islam and I will, when appropriate, also denounce fanatics who terrorise under the guise of other religions, sects or caste status.

Furthermore what occurs in other nations *is* in fact very relevant to muslimahs in Australia but I find your parochialism, well errr....quaint!

Ninety percent of clients are female, seen by the Islamic Sharia Council, which oversees the large number of Muslim courts operating in Britain.

Thousands of Muslim women in the UK are seeking divorces from their husbands. Why? I trust you are not sufficiently gullible in believing that all Muslim women in Australia are liberated and wear the burqa by choice?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197478/Sharia-law-UK--How-Islam-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html

Celivia, "I'm sure that all the child molesting priests had bare faces too. It's other body parts that they should've kept covered."

You gave the example of a chaplain and I responded by drawing your attention to the Qld government's Blue Card system. This stuff about priests, religious instruction and so on is coming totally from left field. You have no idea where I might stand on chaplains and it is irrelevant to the thread.

Returning to security, it is not limited to checking ID in a private room by another woman as you suggest, it is also about being able to see and recognise a person in the school grounds. That is no different from any area where security is required. Wear the burqa in public by all means but not inside the school or when accompanying the students on excursions.

Protagoras

Please demonstrate where I have:

Manipulated facts. The percentages I have quoted are based on ABS estimates of the number of Muslims currently living in Australia (allowing for increases since census) and a fair extrapolation of women who actually wear the full burqa - most orthodox Muslim women wear the hijab.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/bfdda1ca506d6cfaca2570de0014496e!OpenDocument

Abused anyone? You have personally abused me.

>> Your active manipulation of facts, your abuse and the retreat to argumentum ad ignorantium reveals the gurglings of one in possession of one half of one sensory neuron. <<

The above is just a single comment from your post which amounts to nothing more than a stream of abuse directed to me personally.

Cornflower

I'm not sure I understand your point regarding chaplains v burqa wearing mothers.

Chaplains are proselytizing their religion irrespective of the religious beliefs of children, while the burqa wearing mothers are picking up their children from school.

Do you support ban on burqas, but not a separation between the state and religion?

Awaiting your edification.

CF
Re Chaplains, what Severin said. Thank you, Severin for seeing the connection. A blue card is hardly going to stop chaplains from spreading nonsense.
Re Security, yes I agree, I thought I had agreed already with CJ, who, in the beginning of this debate, said,
“Any security concerns can easily be allayed by regulation and practice, rather than legislation. I think that it would be quite reasonable for the burqa to be treated in much the same way as a motorcycle helmet or a balaclava, and that businesses, government agencies, airports etc are entitled to refuse admission to somebody who is unable to be identified because they are wearing a burqa. No need to change the law on that account.”

As I said, I was just exploring whether there could be made arrangements in some cases to make both parties happy. If there are no low-cost and viable ideas for individual arrangements, which burqa-wearers probably have to negotiate themselves in their own life situations and communities, then of course they’d have to make the choice whether to give up going to certain places or participating in certain activities or whether to give up the burqa.
There is nothing wrong with thinking about and sharing possible alternatives, CF. This is the last I’m going to say about this because there is no argument.

Protagoras
Yes, I do criticise and ridicule the religious when they believe in utter nonsense or express their religion by things like covering the face, or wearing a torture device pendant such as the crucifix around their neck. So what? I do not constantly highlight all the negatives of only one particular religion or tell them what to do or to wear- as long as they don’t impose their religion on other people’s freedom.

TBC

Continued...

If wearing a burqa makes a moslimah feel devoted to her god, even though I personally think that this is a crazy thing to do, I can of course express my opinion but for the rest it is none of my business and I wouldn’t want to interfere with their choice!

I also think it’s crazy to have 100 facial and body piercings or wear, as somebody mentioned, extremely high heels on which one can not even walk properly, and with the danger of spraining one’s ankle or hurting one’s back. But would I want to interfere? No!
Who says that some people are not a ‘victims’ of fashion or under peer pressure to have tattoos and body piercings?
Why don't you go and 'rescue' them, too?

You try to be a do-gooder when you say that you “denounce fanatics in our midst who subjugate and oppress women under the name of Islam” , but don’t you see that in countries that have banned the burqa, such as Turkey and France, it now has become a matter of violation of women’s rights because women are being prohibited from wearing what they want.

And why do you single out women who are oppressed under the name of Islam? While you believe that Islam is to blame for women’s oppression, you ignore the women inside the backward Exclusive Brethren, or Eastern Orthodox Church. Or what about the Congo, where the majority are Christians and perhaps 10% Muslim? What about the Mormon fundies who believe that women are the property of the men?
Me thinks that you will keep on targeting Islam and make yourself believe that you are ‘helping’ these women.

“Thousands of Muslim women in the UK are seeking divorces from their husbands.”
Well, good for them. That means that muslimahs are capable to get out of a marriage if they want to. Just like Christian, Jewish or atheist women.
Sounds like muslimahs do not need to be rescued by people who tell them what to wear.

Severin, "Do you support ban on burqas, but not a separation between the state and religion?"

Fair dinkim that would have to be one of the most idiotic posts on this board. For heaven's sake, don't you read any posts before unloading? Here, from page 1:

"If a few attention-seeking women want to rock around Oz in potato sacks so be it but really, truly, who cares? Frankly, it is not worth banning.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 21 May 2010 12:15:13 PM"

Also, although I shouldn't feel obliged to say this because it is totally irrelevant to this thread, on OLO I have previously supported offering the study of ethics and philosophy, or even doing other homework or sport, in lieu of religious studies.

Now along with Celivia who also seems determined to similarly divert onto religion, would you mind doing me the justice of reading what I have written about security and schools, which is being driven by parent and community demands and has nothing to do with religion and chaplains. The security complaints are mainly rooted in alleged problems arising from family law. It is a fact that non-custodial persons, women included, have taken children and have even whisked them abroad.

It is the expectation of school communities and the public generally, that the scrutiny of anyone on school grounds will be tight and part of that is ensuring that everyone is easily recognisable, readily identifiable and easily described. It is ridiculous to even propose that a school should be required to provide a female staff member to escort someone around because that person's religious fundamentalism 'requires' the wearing of a face concealing bag.

Protagoras
Your motives and good ones in wishing to stop oppression of women and I don't read your comments as being anti-Muslim. I have read enough of your comments on other issues on OLO to believe you think sensitively and intelligently about many issues. Virginia Hausegger has written similar on this subject. Hausegger also IMO does not write as an anti-Muslim, but like you comes at the debate from a purely pro-women perspective as she sees it.

However, as you have come to conclude yourself albeit for other reasons, a ban is counter-productive and may actually result in a minority of women living more restricted lives in the worst of cases.

Celivia's last two posts echo my thoughts, nothing good will come from a ban. There is hope in more secular societies that the extreme aspects of some religions may be tempered to some extent with exposure to other cultures. We might think it silly for a Brethren women to be forced to wear a headscarf while men remain hair-exposed, or a Muslim women to wear a Burqua or hijab, but it is a human right to choose one's religion including some that sometimes come with a dress code.

In fact the more we jump up and down the more it will be defended so I just reckon live and let live other than respecting the security considerations at designated venues.

What happens though to the first public transport operator who asks to see the person demanding the student concession? Have only female drivers and a confidential booth?

Religious tolerance is fine but this is a secular state.

Or how about the invigilator in an examination who wants to see the identity of the person under the bedsheet or check that they don't have any hidden electronic cheating devices? As it is, regular examinees are required to remove their headgear with special exemptions for sikhs and muslimahs. Not to extend such exemptions to burqinahs would be discriminatory.
Or how about the burqinah who applies for a job as a bus or taxi driver and then sues for discrimination when they are told that their attire is not suitable as it masks their identity?
Or how about the burqinah who applies for a job as a police officer?
Many Western police forces already incorporate the hijab into police uniforms.
Not to include the burqa surely amounts to discrimination.
Or how about the burqinah who is permitted to enter a bank while the motorcyclist with an open-faced helmet is ordered to remove it. The situation already exists where banks allow hijabs while disallowing open-faced helmets.
Muslims are already successfully suing public swimming pool which disallow Islamic swimming gear on the same basis that they disallow board shorts and other loose clothing in the water. Why not? It's discrimination!
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3486:perths-adventure-world-coughs-up&catid=274:litigation-jihad&Itemid=59
It's called lawfare and it's part of the jihad.

Thank you for your very rational post Pelican. It is curious to witness the vitriol directed at the opponents of the feigned bleeding hearts who accuse one of discrimination when the burqa is not part of Islam. It is predominantly part of a culture in the Middle East reinforced by men from the stone age.

And lets be honest - religions are afraid of women, and do everything possible to deny them the sensual natural world we inhabit but nobody can enforce a dress code in the name of Islam. I think you'd agree that validating equality, fraternity and liberty is not symbolised by a burqa.

Hindu women, especially in the north of India, practise veiling also - the burqa is the extreme end of the continuum, however, there is nothing in Hinduism that makes an individual's spiritual salvation anyone's business except the individual herself.

Interestingly, participants on this thread use the argument of the nun and the habit, which incidentally does not cover the face. This is a fatuous argument and I can personally attest to the fact that nuns kicked the habit decades ago - post Vatican II. These days one can converse with liberated, backpacking nuns in pants suits or floral skirts - no headgear!

More curious are the young women in the West who insist on wearing the burqa while their mothers did not and instead of the burqa protecting her from probing eyes, she has become a spectacle.

No-one knows how many Muslim girls and women are "veiling" because they are: 1) defying the demands of a Western culture 2) from choice 3) out of fear of their own men folk.

Perhaps at least some Muslim women wear the burqa as a protest against the Western invasions of Islamic countries? Besieged groups will after all tighten, not loosen their grip on peculiar customs, subjected to ridicule. However, I would urge those subjugated women in democratic countries to become fearless when they continue to have the most to fear from an oppressor, hellbent on importing medieval, tribal customs to a free nation.

Proxy, I know you're just trolling, but we covered all that stuff in this dicussion a week ago.

Do try and keep up.

The Koran has nothing definitive on the burqa.

The requirement of both men and women is that they dress modestly. In the most extreme Islamic communities this is applied disproportionately to women, who not only have to completely cover up, but are also denied freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of education etc.

No where is this garb or anything like it applied to men. The burqa is not just another garment like trousers, or a hat, it is the single most overt expression of the domination of men over women closely followed by female circumcision.

While I hear cries of outrage over the suggestion that a non harmful "ritual nick" be allowed for those that might otherwise transport their daughters overseas for the far more serious version, the wearing of the burqa in Australia is pushed as a right of religious free expression.

The burqa is not like wearing a Jewish skull cap or a cross around the neck, and to pretend it is, is at best a vast oversimplification of the issue, and to claim that all who wish to ban it are islamophobes is being either naive or deliberately misleading.

The burqa is not worn in Australia. Nor is it worn in France. It is worn in Afganistan but that is about the limit as far as i'm aware.

What is worn is the niqab.

grateful

I beg to differ. In my capacity as a Public Servant I had to interview a woman in the full burqa and she was accompanied by a male, who sat silently behind her throughout the interview. I could not make eye contact or form any kind of communication bridge - something I could always do with just about anyone.

Yes the burqa being worn in Western countries is such a rarity that putting a law out to ban them is absurd. Nor would I dictate to the woman I interviewed how she should dress herself. But my lasting impressions of her was not of an independent woman - I felt a great sadness that I could not reach her in a human way.

It is such a vexed issue. I loathe the burqa for the piece of misogynistic invention that it is. However, all I can do is hope that as people become more comfortable living in Australia they will adopt less paralysing forms of clothing as they do our culture. The best one can do is extend friendship instead of commands.

Severin

What does your department's policy say about obtaining proof of identity?

Is the audit committee happy with interviews and disclosure of private information to people in burqas and face concealing clothing accessories?

What policy permits a burqa-clad person to get past your counter and into your main office area?

For interest, if say a person was being interviewed for a possible fraud or other abuse of government entitlements would departmental investigators eg the fraud unit similarly allow the wearing of a face concealing clothing accessory?

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (24:31) - Commands women to "draw their headscarves" over their neckline as well.

Qur'an (33:59) - "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them..."

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (6:321) - Muhammad is asked whether it is right for a young woman to leave her house without a veil. He replies, "She should cover herself with the veil of her companion."

Bukhari (60:282) - After Muhammad issued the command (Qur'an 24:31) for women to cover themselves, the women responded by tearing up sheets to cover their faces.

Abu Dawud (32:4092) - The Apostle of Allah... said: "O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands" This was according to Aisha.

Abu Dawud (2:641) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah does not accept the prayer of a woman who has reached puberty unless she wears a veil.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/007-veils.htm