This debate about the burqa has more twist and turns than a politicans promise.

I guess I look at it this way, when western women travel to these middle eastern countries they are required to dress modestly.

At this point in time Australia is not a middle eastern country and women are not required by law to wear the burqu yet.

As I see it there are two problems with the Burqa:

1) Any person who does not show their face does not have an identity in our society - they cannot participate. After all, how can we confirm that someone is who they say they are if we cannot see them? The burqa effectively isolates women and separates them from anyone but their families and other women (when men are absent).

2) The religious excuse I have heard used for the burqa is that women must not reveal themselves lest this arouse immoral thoughts/lust etc. in men. Thus, whenever a man in our society sees a burqa it is an ongoing, silent accusation that he cannot control himself. It is demeaning to women and a demeaning insult to men.

The burqa has no place in our society and should be banned - for the sake of both women and men.

'Sheik Hilali’s description of Australian women as “uncovered meat” in 2006 is essentially the equivalent of Bernardi’s push to criminalise Muslim women who wear the burqa'

These sort of comments goes to show that feminist don't themselves know what they want. They need a good man to guide them.

I'm a bit puzzled by the manufacture of a 'problem'. Can we please differentiate between: a) a head scarf, b) the hijab, c) the nikab, and d) the burka. (Surely nobody is complaining about dress below the neck ?)

I can't, for the life of me, see anything wrong with the veil or hijab, and the number of women wearing the nikab or burla (I've never actually seen a woman in a burka in real-life) is surely negligible ? So why the preoccupation with what Muslim women might be wearing ? Why not have a go at muffin tops and baggy, bare-arse jeans ?

Leave it alone. It will be up to Muslim women (and their feminist sisters) to sort out what they wear, and when they might feel free enough to switch to less restrictive dress. But it's their call, not anybody else's.

Joe

An intelligent, well-argued article with which I substantially agree.

It always amuses me when the lunar Right conscript women's rights in their war against Islam, while attempting to dictate to women what they can and cannot wear. The confected burqa controversy is nothing more than a dog-whistle to Islamophobes.

As has been discussed ad infinitum at OLO, there are many ways to discourage the wearing of the burqa in Australia short of banning it.

I'll say it again: oh, the irony of Western liberals using the craven language of 'cultural sensitivity' to give comfort to the most illiberal of ideologies.

Ban it in banks, for the same reasons as helmets are: No exceptions should be made for a culturally backward practice.
As for banning it elsewhere...It does not have quite the same ethical implications as child genital mutilation because it is adults, supposedly willing adults taking part. Not so simple though as it is the males that generally impose it on women. This is a cultural thing, not religious. Western culture decided (righly or wrongly) long ago that a runner style approach to women ("Needs a good man to dominate them") wasn't desirable or acceptable, so do we allow it's re-introduction in the name of "multiculturalism"?

If it is 'war on women' it is being waged by women as well because there are very few women in Australia who support the burqa are many of them are so revulsed to be to the forefront in demanding a ban.

The example of the woman in Italy whose husband now says he “will keep her indoors because he can't have other men looking at her”, following her fine for being fully veiled is childish and ridiculous. There is nothing to stop this foolish woman from calling the cops who will immediately tell the errant spouse to pull his head in. Choice and liberty mean nothing unless people claim those rights for themselves.

As for wars, there is solid evidence that women not only vote for governments that propose war but do so in such numbers that the women's vote carries the day. Women adore conservative Liberal politics and 'strong' leaders like Pig Iron Bob Menzies, Harold Holt and John Grey Gorton ("All the way with LBJ"). Australia's entry to the Vietnam war, the duration of its participation and the dreadful conscription of teens would never have been possible without the consistently strong conservative vote by women that always exceeded the vote of men.

Years later, the conservative vote of women saw the John Howard, Dubya's "Man of Steel" win and retain power for over a decade, while volunteering our troops for Iraq and Afghanistan. In Australia as in other countries, there is no doubt whatsoever that women are happy to load the cartridges and direct young men, many of whom do not even have their first experience of love with a woman to be broken or killed in fear and filth.

Banning the burqa is silly because very few are fundamentalist enough to wear it and who would want to give oxygen to further abuse of their adopted country that could foster hatred in their homes? Because the home is where the seed of fundamentalist hatred is planted and nurtured.

<<And, if I decided to...swathe myself in a burqa no politician or government official should be there...threatening to fine me.>>
As a self-professed non-Muslim demanding the right to wear a burqa if you so choose,
you should also extend this "right" to any man who wants to wear a burqa,
otherwise you would have to agree that you are a sexist.
Therefore, any man should be able to wear a burqa anywhere, anytime, including banks, law courts, etc,
in the same manner that you have demanded for yourself.

<<The result was that her husband now says he “will keep her indoors because he can't have other men looking at her”>>
If an Australian man publicly declared that he would imprison his wife within her own house for whatever reason he deemed reasonable, you would presumably think that to be perfectly okay.
You would say that she must do what her husband says otherwise she will remain a prisoner.
Far better that, than to demand her husband stops imprisoning her.
But wait,
Islam grants men complete authority over their women...
"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other"
Koran 4:34
... so who are we to argue with Allah's perfect and eternal message to Mohammed?
After all forcing a woman to wear a burqa is better than beating them:
"As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them."
Koran 4:34

What happens when feminism meets multiculturalism?
Mass confusion!
"Oh my goodness. Which ism takes precedence?"
Keep the laughs coming.

Lyn has declared war on common sense.
Next she will be saying that the push to ban genital mutilation of both boys and girls is a war on children!

The Burka is a symbol of oppression and Lyn wants to keep it. The burka has got little to do with Islam. and even if it did if a religion said that women should have their left hand cut off would Lyn be defending their right to have it done?

Lyn it may be hard for you to imagine, but sometimes western aren’t the bad guys and yourself loathing of your own culture is missed placed.

Few Australians oppose "modest garments" whether supposedly "Islamic" or any other religious order, cult, racial or ethnic group.

BTW there's no "Islamic dress code" bar both sexes dress "modestly" and implication that women cover their hair.

My only issue and that of most others is IDENTIFICATION.

FACT - the burqa is a cultural garment for which proponents falsely claim religious obligation. The problem is concealment of the wearers face, therefore identity. Should Australias 'burqa brigade' modify the sack to reveal face from eyebrows to under chin - problem solved!

CJ - the Islamaphobe accusation has surely worn thin. For Allahs sake find a new catchcry! Most Australians support freedom of religion and expression UNLESS such 'freedom' interferes with rights and freedom of others. I believe it my right to be able to identify the person who enters my premises.

As for burqa wearers - regardless of protestations from dubious sources that it's purely voluntarily (doubtful, and personal experience supports my suspicion) this garment precludes any real participation in wider society. Little opportunity exists for the wearer to engage in social or vocational roles outside domestic confines - UNLIKE equally 'traditional' headscarf wearers. The latter, more often than not, cover all but face and hands, can and often do fulfil important community roles and interact outside immediate family. This is what multiculturalism is supposed to do for Australia right? It's all about the sharing and working together for a richer, better society. Being faceless makes that impossible.

So why ban it rather than let it 'die out' like many claim? Burqas have been on Australian city streets since the 70s - over 30 yrs. Waves of immigration from ethnic groups who insist women wear the burqa continue. Without a ban on FACE COVERING (the burqa need only have minor modification) those who want complete 'non-personalisation' of their womenfolk will insist on it and those who for misplaced belief wear it willingly will continue doing so.

It's not wrong or discrimatory insisting on the same standard for everyone.

"An intelligent, well-argued article with which I substantially agree'
Farewell CJ.
All the best conversing with your friend in the mirror.

I love you too Blair - but surely even you can muster up an intelligent comment about the article, rather than a rather odd one about me?

War on women, what rot.

We have just granted women the special privilege of committing cold blooded, premeditated killing, provided they are good at spinning a story. We have even outlined the story they have to act out. Done properly, it will not be counted as murder.

And women lost that war?

<<Blair - but surely even you can muster up an intelligent comment about the article,>>
CJ,
Why don't you try leading by example?

Are you jealous, Proxy?

I agree with you Joe. Burqua's do not faze me at all; in fact I actually love seeing womens' beautiful large brown eyes with their eyeliner and mascara peering out of them. Mysterious, sensual and most expressive eyes telling her story. I came across a woman tonight wearing one, pushing her three little boys in a trolley, while the father stood outside the shop checking out all the western women [in his late thirties]...until my eyes locked with his and I looked across at his wife and smiled, looking down at their three beautiful boys. The greatest gift that bloke could ever be given through life.

We are unique, I think you are confusing the Burqa with a nikab that Muslim women wear.

The Burqa actually covers the wearers eyes, as well as the rest of her body. They are able to see only through small slits in the material covering their face/head, or through a gauze 'window' in the material.

You can only see the details of their eyes if they are wearing the nikab- which is a head scarf that covers the whole head, plus a veil from the nose down- leaving just the eyes exposed.

I have no problem with the nikab either. I like some of the lovely scarves they wear as well.

I don't like the burqa at all. These women are partly blind when they leave their house- because they have trouble with seeing anything outside of their central vision.
They are unable to enjoy an outside life without the encumbrance of metres of fabric hindering their movement in many activities.

The reasons their men give about covering any aspect of 'their' women makes me feel sad for them in a supposedly equal society like Australia.
Why aren't the men also required to wear full body clothing to be modest and stop all the Australian women lusting after them?

The fact their menfolk aren't also wearing full body clothing in hot weather as well, makes me angry.

Thanks, weareunique and suze. Yes, I have to admit that often Muslim women have the most beautiful eyes I have ever seen, so even the nikab doesn't do much to minimise their allure (but don't tell their husbands that). And let's face it, surely we all have to admit that a high proportion of Muslim women are just beautiful ? Miss USA is not the only one, by any means.

Here's a question for all you other hysterical children: have you seen all that many Muslim women wearing the burqa, the full-covering garments ? Or are you confusing it with the nikab ? Or even with the hijab ? Get a life.

Leave people alone, what on earth harm are they doing to you ? You're 'offended' by seeing women all covered ? Suck it up, it's not really your call how other people dress.

"Banning the burqa is tantamount to waging war on women"

I would have considered that the burqa was a war on women. By extension, anyone should have the freedom to wear the swastika on an armband or any other symbol of hate and oppression.

What next? The freedom to possess child porn?

While there are many rights to fight for, the burqa does not stand out as a symbol of enlightenment.

Hon. Shadow Minister,

You are missing the point entirely: nobody is saying that the burqa is a strike for liberation, it's generally agreed that it is one of the most clear representations of women's oppression ever devised (which is probably why it is very rarely seen in Australia). But if wearing one is the only way that a woman can get out of the house and experience the outside world, then leave it alone: it's a bit like trying to turn devout Christians into atheists - a long-term goal, but one that can't be realised by force (as surely the Russian experience amply demonstrates). If this is a fight for the minds of Muslim women's minds, then that is mainly up to them and their feminist sisters.

Shadow Minister: << By extension, anyone should have the freedom to wear the swastika on an armband or any other symbol of hate and oppression. >>

That's a good example, although not for the reason you imagine. I think you'll find that it's not actually illegal to wear a swastika armband in Australia, but the social opprobrium it attracts means that you'll rarely see one in public, if ever.

<< What next? The freedom to possess child porn? >>

A poor analogy for several reasons, one of which is that the call to ban the burqa is a call to ban for dubious reasons something that is presently legal, where possesion of child pornography is already illegal for good reasons.

Strangely, I haven't previously noticed that Shadow Minister is a vocal supporter of women's rights.

If we took the intelligent step of banning Islamic immigration,
then the banning of the burqa would become a moot point.
The Islamic war on women would stay in the Middle East
and the Islamic war on infidels would stay in the Middle East.
As they should, for the well-being of all Australians.

suzeonline, "The fact their menfolk aren't also wearing full body clothing in hot weather as well, makes me angry."

Why so when all of the available evidence is that it is the women who are making the choice?

Could it be that the some women's fundamentalism is expressed through such dress accessories as the burqa, while others who control their religion rather than have it control them might choose anything from western dress through to a Christian Lacroix silk skirt cut in Muslim style and Eddy (Absolutely Fabulous) would be proud of them?

By way of example, presumably when a Muslim woman thinks of the quote from Allah “O Children of Adam! Wear your beautiful apparel at every time and place of prayer”, it would be her own 'take' of her religion that would have her choose a light lacy scarf over her head or something in black and lots of it with heavy fishnet over the eyes for total coverage.

Through choice, women from other cultural groups and faiths have continued to wear traditional voluminous black dresses and veils, not as daunting as the niqab or burqa, but uncomfortable and unflattering nonetheless.

"Obama's pertinent speech in Cairo was wrong in at least one respect. Let us say [for the sake of the argument] – though I find it difficult to do so – that women should be free to wear the veil. [Still, Obama] should have added that they must [also] be free to remove it."
Dr. Abdelwahab Meddeb
“…in the context of the veil, "free choice" was an illusion: "The moment [wearing] the veil is presented as a divine duty, the issue of free choice is no longer valid, [and] all Muslim women are exposed to [this religious] propaganda. How can we pretend they have a choice when they are told that [their] religion obligates [them to wear a veil]? The women [who wear] a full veil [i.e. a niqab, which covers everything but the eyes,] do so in order to comply with what is requested and expected of them by their husbands or their sect."
Leila Barbès, professor of religion and sociology at the Catholic University of Lille
"We seem to have forgotten the blood-soaked days in my country of origin, Algeria, when women were slaughtered for [choosing not to wear the veil]. And what about the Afghan women [under the Taliban], who were denied education and suffered from the [negative] effects of wearing that portable prison [the burqa]?
"To think that Mr. Obama reached out to fundamentalists in Cairo, trying to buy them with [his statement about] the veil! He did not say a word in Cairo about fundamental freedoms... or about all the women who are currently fighting around the world to launch a debate [about the veil] in their country! We must support these women... What are we afraid of?"
Sihem Habchi, president of the feminist organization Ni Putes Ni Soumises ["Neither Whores nor Slaves"],
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4248.htm

Cornflower <' Why so when all of the available evidence is that it is the women who are making the choice?"
What evidence is that then?
Does this 'evidence' come from the radical clerics mouths?

Do you even know any Muslim women Cornflower?
I do, and have cared for many of them in their own homes here in Australia.

Many of the ones I met are totally under the control of their menfolk.
When I suggest they need to see their GP to check a wound or another medical problem, they tell me they have to wait until their husband has time to go with them because they are not 'allowed' to go out on their own.

So we wait, and wait, until the husband has time to take her to see the GP. Of course, it must be a female GP- or she can't see anyone.

If they do go out, then they must cover themselves or their menfolk (including young sons) would 'not be happy'.
This treatment of women should not be allowed in Australia.

CJ thinks it’s all about social opprobrium –but there is more to social opprobrium than meets the ire.

It wouldn’t be hard to guess what forms such social opprobrium would take if an attendee turned up in Nazi regalia to a public institution, and it seems even in fancy dress mode, it might be highly risqué (remember prince Harry’s bad selection of uniform http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4170083.stm ).Social opprobrium in bucket loads!

But contrast this with our experience of what happened when a student ( suddenly, overnight ) decided she had an overpowering religious obligation to wear what she considered religious attire to one of our public schools –it happened, we don’t have to guess.( http://www.smh.com.au/news/Miranda-Devine/Coverup-campaign-cavein-a-blow-for-common-sense/2005/05/21/1116533578045.html ) .There was social opprobrium, but it was cut short--in fact the authorities, like a scared puppy, almost wet themselves trying to appease the rebel.

Thousands of movies, documentaries, books and history lessons, few of which present Nazism in a positive light have cemented a very negative image of Nazism ---and possibly with good reason.

But there is an anomaly, some of the creeds that are now colonizing Australia have an equally chequered past, but strangely you will hear little about it, because some such groups feel offended if you talk about their misdemeanours let alone their masterdemeanors. They don’t even like you drawing pictures of their heroes! And, if you do,they take “offence”(if they dont kill you) and to offend in a “multicultural”society is a grade A charge–leastways, if it’s a minority which takes the offence!

So social opprobrium is not likely to be a very reliable measure –control or otherwise.

Which brings us back to what Stevenlmeyer and AlGoreisRich and Proxy and others have been getting at for some time: the censorship, selectively and outright cowardice which is becoming so much a part of our “multicultural” society.

Horus,

So are you saying that Muslim women have been collectively responsible for genocide and other war crimes ? And that is why they shouldn't be allowed to dress as they wish, or currently feel they have to ?

Are you also suggesting that Muslim women should take on the sins of the Muslim world and be punished for them, and that dress has got something to do with it all ?

And before you go on about burqas and suicide vests, should we ban taxis because some crazy taxi-driver went on a rampage ? Yes, one thing has nothing to do with the other, I agree: and the same with burqas.

What people wear is their own business, not mine or yours.

Loudmouth,
I am not too concerned about dress codes ( after all, a wolf in sheiks clothing is still a wolf) –except to make two points:
1) If a school, bank or airport security sets a dress standard – it would be reasonably to expected that it should apply across the board, &
2) I suspect the dress code that many Islamic women abide by has little to do with *their* choice ( suggest you reread some of the feminist theories about societal controls)

And, if it is ok –nay not just ok, but absolutely de rigueur–to highlight /deconstruct every low act of western nations and creeds.
Being equal opportunity and non-discriminatory as we all no doubt aspire to be, we should apply the same to Islam, in all its various forms and misforms.

Horus,

'to dress as they wish, or currently feel they have to' - point already taken. The internal politics and gender relations in the Muslim community are issues that are yet to be sorted out, but blaming the women is hardly the way to help this along. And surely the more they can get out and see the world in all its unrestricted glory, the better ?

Non-discriminatory: exactly.

I just love how everybody in this debate mostly ignores the racist bile from Poxy. Looks like those propaganda lessons from the white supremacists weren't that useful after all.

JamesH, an ironic desire to treat this article, with the contempt it deserves, perhaps.

Micheal_in_Adelaide, agreed, & if your a motor cycle courier, regardless of gender, race, religion, you are required, by "Gun Toting" security, to remove it, almost every time you get off your bike, to enter a building.

As a motor bike rider i can assure you, this can be quite uncomfortable, as quality of head protection means a firm fit, many quality modern helmets have the Headsets, Blue tooth, etc, built in for use with mobile phones, music, computerised &/or radio communication.

You will have seen that motor cycle police, usually leave it on while writing tickets, then get back on their bike to find another errant motorist.

The Fe"Man"Nazi's want you to feel insulted, ashamed of your manhood, race, middle class bourgeois lifestyle, etc, etc, etc. Using Multiculturalism is just one of the methods used by CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialist's, to encourage self loathing in you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

runner, Bravo, mate, but i suspect this CARS, Fauxmanista wants to use this debate, to encourage the importation of Radical, Extremist, Muslims, who are more likely to use violence, create racial tension. In order to justify more "1984" "Big Sista" PC laws, leading to the NWO, UN, 4th Reich.

BTW, if there are any "Male Chauvinist Pigs" out there looking for evidence that women are indeed, less intelligent than men & in fact need, "Good Men" to protect them, from themselves, look no further.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1064641/hiv-acrobats-girlfriend-will-post-bail

Joe, Loadmouth, Surely you jest, "Pretend Burqas" have already been used by criminals in robberies. If you persist in importing large numbers of KNOWN religious extremists, you multiply the likelihood we will end up, like Britain & Europe, with regular home grown terrorism.

Please don't tell me this is NOT a deliberate, CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialist, plot.

Any Doctor will tell you, that it is not possible, for any "Human Being" to be stupid enough, to be doing this rubbish as a genuine, honest mistake. Nobody on the planet has an IQ that low, let alone, our best & brightest leadership.

Thanks, Formersnag, I enjoy a bit of ad hominem myself, and thank you also for confirming my suspicion that bikies who pick on women are gutless pussies: the bigger the bike, the smaller the .... and the louder the bike, the bigger the @rsehole.

Isn't ad hominem fun ?

Joe Lane
Adelaide

C J Morgan, get your conspiracy theories correct dear boy.

The war on Islam is not a conspiracy of sensible, centrist's like myself or Tony Abbott. It is between Loony, lefties, like you, together with "International Banksters" & the Raving, Right, Dubbya types.

Most of the tea partiers in the US, want their children out of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. If you tried reading my comments or those of runner or ALGOREisRICH, before trying to justify your own lunacy you would know that.

BTW, i have read the quran from cover to cover, have you? There is nothing in it about "Modesty" requiring the body be totally 100%, covered. That is a "Sharia Law" invention or Ethnic custom Add on, of interpretation on top of interpretation, just as silly as some of the stuff the pope invents/interprets to inflict on catholics.

Clownfish, did you here about the 2 blokes in the pub? The CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialist, says, i want to destroy western democratic culture & the egalitarian, liberal, christian, says, really, so do i.

Ozandy, correct, but runner would disagree about, "Dominating Women" as would i, we want REAL equality, which is quite different from the Fe"Man"Nazi, Big Sista, World, Australia has become.

Everything the red/green/getup/labour coalition has been sprouting for 5 decades now, is Spin Doctored Lies, they are incapable of Honesty, "its just NOT in their DNA".

Cornflower, your last line, nailed it, that's exactly why we don't need these extremists here to bring their wars to our formerly, peaceful country. If our culture is so abhorrent to them, they are welcome to leave.

Proxy, first rate, these neanderthals from the CARS, Communist, Anarchist, Radical, Socialist, Red/green/getup/labour coalition are so confused from Spinning, http://www.whirlingdervishes.org/ they no longer understand their own ism schisms, anymore.

Kenny, they are the worlds worst racists, they hate everybody who is white, or male & not Communist.

divine_msn, Go girl, but Multiculturalism was never about enriching, only impoverishing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Formersnag, you forgot Marxism. As a born Marxist, I must admit that it (or rather, most of its tiny, mutually-hostile, mini-factions) has/have its/their share of futile idiocy. And I would certainly support your right to express your viewpoints, even though I don't agree with many of them.

But trying to ban viewpoints is a two-edged sword. Just as Stalin (after whom I was named) committed monstrous crimes in demolishing churches, mosques and synagogues in the 30s, in an effort to drive religion out of people's minds (and look what has happened since the death of the USSR on that score), so it is that seeking to penalise women for the way they dress - for whatever reason - will not have the consequences you may seek.

Yes, I look forward to the day when Muslim women can drop their veils too, but to a large extent, this would have to be up to them.

Freedom of expression requires that we respect each person's right to speak their mind, as you do, but it does NOT mean that we have to respect uncritically what that person is saying - once it is out in the public arena, it is fair game for criticism. But Muslim women are hardly the Machiavellian drivers of alien evil, no matter what they might be wearing.

Joe

suzeonline,

Regardless of your personal anecdotes and I don't doubt your honesty, the media has been swamped with statements by Muslim women, multiculturalism advocates and feminists too that Muslim women wear the accessories of their religious fundamentalism by choice. It is highly amusing that they walk both sides of the street in doing this, asserting that the veil, for example, is worn always by choice and there is growing support among some (predictable) sections of the commentariat for the niqab as well as a clothing accessory of choice.

Yet somehow wearing the burqa in the West has to involve compulsion, unless there is criticism of the burqa, in which case it is women's choice and those awful 'men' at it again. Whereupon there is a thunder of denunciation of men, particularly those imperialistic white SOB's of that very flawed gender.

You can retain that image of the modest, compliant, fragile flowers of Muslim women if you like, along with your stereotypical controlling male. However the compulsion and control you allude to are inherent in the religion and therein lies the problem. The Sharia sets out the rules of conduct for men and for women and through incrementalist change, assisted by weak politicians with an eye for the next election, it will be introduced as in the UK and will have the same divisive outcomes.

It is not the burqa that is of concern, it is the demand to change usual everyday rules and behaviour of our secular society and government to accommodate it. That is the thin edge of a broad wedge.

Presumably, on this basis I and every other male in this country can now wear a hoody and a proper balaclava with sunglasses wherever we please, without being unduly targeted by the authorities? If (actually when) I'm pulled up by Police can I scream racial vilification?

I have no issue what people wear, except for the obvious, rather idiotic restriction upon (a) identification and (b) CCTV Surveillance (I mean, why should I or a non-Burka wearing person be more prone to identification & punishment for my/their crimes, than someone wearing one?, that surely is discriminatory).

The Shoplifting gangs are gonna love this, moslem or not, twenty odd women enter a store, half a dozen brazenly nick stuff and who will be able to identify the thieves? For that matter, what about the males who will want to wear it because they identify themselves as female? Surely you won't want to discriminate against them?

Armed Robbery and Violent Assaults by Burka-clad Berkers are about to soar

What does Mohammed say about burqas?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/007-veils.htm

What does Mohammed say about other things?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm

jjplug: << I just love how everybody in this debate mostly ignores the racist bile from Poxy. Looks like those propaganda lessons from the white supremacists weren't that useful after all. >>

Speaking for myself, I usually ignore trolls like Poxy.

<< i suspect this CARS, Fauxmanista wants to use this debate, to encourage the importation of Radical, Extremist, Muslims, who are more likely to use violence, create racial tension. In order to justify more "1984" "Big Sista" PC laws, leading to the NWO, UN, 4th Reich. >>

Thanks to Formersnag for sharing more of his "moderate and mainstream" political ideas.

Cornflower: << It is highly amusing that they walk both sides of the street in doing this, asserting that the veil, for example, is worn always by choice and there is growing support among some (predictable) sections of the commentariat for the niqab as well as a clothing accessory of choice. >>

I always find it amusing when Cornflower attempts to maintain her precarious perch on the fence. It's probably necessary when you're a conservative ALP supporter these days. I don't envy her.

Custard: << Presumably, on this basis I and every other male in this country can now wear a hoody and a proper balaclava with sunglasses wherever we please, without being unduly targeted by the authorities? If (actually when) I'm pulled up by Police can I scream racial vilification >>

You can't already wear a "proper balaclava" when you walk into my business. I'd apply the same restriction to someone wearing a burqa - mind you, it's never happened so far. As far as I know, 'hoodies' aren't illegal anywhere in Australia.

You haters should get your facts straight.

Which racist bile don't you like CJ?

Is it the racist bile in the Koran and hadith which I link to?

CJ Morgan,
<<You haters should get your facts straight.>>
Do you have a problem with the veracity of the Islamic sources linked to?
Questioning the Koran could get you into deep trouble in some parts of the world CJ.
Or is it only hateful when an infidel quotes Islamic sources?
It seems that you feel it is okay for Muslims to quote from the Koran while beheading Jews on the internet,
but not okay for infidels to quote from the same Holy Book.
* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
That doesn't say "Infidels who quote from the Koran are your sworn enemies" CJ, that's all infidels.
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
That isn't "Be ruthless to the infidels who quote from the Koran" CJ, it's for all infidels.
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
That doesn't say "Strike off the heads of infidels in battle who quote from the Koran" CJ, it's all non-quoting infidels as well.
You are a puzzle CJ.
Or are you just hedging your bets for when the time comes, like Pascal?

Proxy, that twaddle strikes about as much fear in me as when I read the 'Lord of the Rings' as a kid.

I often like to say that the only vice I've never had is gambling, which is probably why I'm pretty "relaxed and comfortable" while idiots like you aren't, in Pascal's terms.

Boazy: << Just another reminder Proxy.. you know the drill :) >>

Yes, keep up the good work. Absolutely nobody's twigged :)

CJ Morgan, you know very well what I meant... The concept of allowing people to cover their entire face based upon their nationality and gender, where will it end? Will we be faced with gangs who describe themselves as identifying as non-traditional followers of the prophet, all of whom are cross-dressers?

Truth be to god, I honestly don't care what you wear, provided I can cover up to the same extent. I don't believe in racism (which may suprise some here, others maybe not) and I detest discriminatory treatment (I own a pitbull, whole nother story)...

Actually, Custard, I don't think you're racist. I apologise if I have given that impression elsewhere. You seem like a thoroughly decent bloke who has some strong opinions and biases with which I (mostly) equally strongly disagree :)

What we have here though is a fundamental (if I can use that word correctly) human right - i.e. to do anything as long as that doesn't infringe on the same right as anybody else. Much that I think that the burqa is an idiotic fashion statement and more likely than not a symbol of patriarchal domination, I really have to stretch my sense of indignation to imagine that some poor women who chooses to wear one should be banned from doing so.

I sometimes wonder why young women would have their tongues pierced, or have some ridiculous effigy tattooed at the top of their bumcrack, but I'm both prepared to live with it and admit that sometimes it looks great ;)

It's all been said already. By regulation, burqas shouldn't be allowed anywhere that full-face motorcycle helmets aren't, for the same reasons. Quite simple, really. That's the standard I apply in my business.

No need to get hysterical about it :)

No hysteria, just kind of hard to be told I am only on here for one argument when I am participating in several...

I do actually agree wholeheartedly with you on this point... I disagree strongly with women being forced to wear it, and disagree strongly with women being forced not to... Kind of a hard act to follow isn't it?

I love that ad where the Old Woman is cooking with an ancient tribal tattoo on her upper arm... LOVE IT :D

Custard,

"The Shoplifting gangs are gonna love this, moslem or not, twenty odd women enter a store, half a dozen brazenly nick stuff and who will be able to identify the thieves? For that matter, what about the males who will want to wear it because they identify themselves as female? Surely you won't want to discriminate against them?

Armed Robbery and Violent Assaults by Burka-clad Berkers are about to soar."

You reckon ? How many cases of this have there already been ? We're talking about burqas, right ? Actually, I live a sheltered life so I have never seen a woman wearing one yet, but I would think that one thing about a woman in a burqa is that she would not be unobtrusive, not noticed, sort of invisible, not in a Sydney department store anyway. Do you think that shop staff won't be on the look-out ?

So how many cases already ? How many more do you predict for this year ? Next year ? A burqa-led crime-wave sweeping Australia ?

I don't think so. Do you want to put any money on it ?

Joe

"Jordan offers a glimpse into the potential for niqabs and burqas as illegal accessories: one news report indicates that 50 people committed 170 crimes using Islamic garments during the past two years, or roughly one incident every four days, a crime wave that has prompted some Jordanians to call for restricting or even banning these Islamic head coverings."
http://www.danielpipes.org/7585/niqabs-burqas-veiled-threat

"The burqa (a total head and body covering) has been barred from classrooms in the UK, is illegal in public places in five Belgian towns, and the Dutch legislature has attempted to ban it altogether. Italy's "Charter of Values, Citizenship and Immigration" calls face coverings not acceptable. A courtroom in the United States has expelled a burqa'ed woman."
http://www.danielpipes.org/4783/ban-the-burqa-and-the-niqab-too

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/niqabs-and-burqas-as-security-threats

Proxy,

As far as I know, Jordan is close to 100 % Muslim, and presumably, like in any other country, there are female thieves as well as (far more) male thieves. In Jordan, a high proportion of women wear veiling of some sort. So - hey presto ! big surprise ! - there are bound to be cases of theft involving veiled women. One every four days ? Ninety cases a year, across the country ? Australia's police forces: wish !

He who is without sin, Proxy. Oh, I'm sorry, that's about Christian sinners, isn't it ?

"But if wearing one is the only way that a woman can get out of the house and experience the outside world, then leave it alone:"
Dear Loudmouth
I was at the Kelvin Grove shopping centre in Brisbane last Saturday. There were two young/old women unaccompanied wearing the niqab doing their shopping.
They were experiencing the outside world? I would have thought more experience watching the telly.

I have seen the burqa worn twice by the same women in my regional town.

When I looked at the women in question as it drew my attention of course, head scarfs are regularly worn by Muslim women and students in our town, and I find no problem with them.

But the eyes of those women looked apprehensive and I'm a woman too. I diverted my eyes from them immediately to not cause offense.

One wore black down to her ankles, the other a more fashionable head
gear with only the eyes visible. Very pretty eyes too.

As a liberal feminist, I found myself being slightly irritated I am afraid. And I felt sorry for the women as I didn't know how to interpret that apprehensive look. Some may feel it was a defensive look too? And possibly it was drawing attention they were not used too, and embarrassed by it?

And I think the burqa promotes and encourages isolation of the wearer from the Australian cultural convention or discourages uninvited contact.

Remember, Australians look for eye contact and facial expressions as an important part of human interactions and communications. If this is the case,women are being stopped from communicating with others but a selected few. This to me is an inhibiting social convention I do not approve.

Maybe that is what they wish? I noticed the husbands or male family members of these women were doing the shopping and paying the checkout girls and men. And the husbands were wheeling out the trollys with the women walking behind them, but the male children of one were walking beside their father. And a young infant girl sitting in the trolly.

But would banning the burqa, condemn these women to further isolation
from Australian society.

Thanks Blairbar,

Yes, I seriously think that by getting out, no matter how they might be dressed, women see some of the real-life interactions between men and women, real people, not just the stuff on TV. My hope is that they may come to see that men and women can freely interact without necessarily any dreadful consequences, and that this might be more persuasive on very hot days.
Are we moving from birqas to nikabs now ?

Bush bunny !
Engage them ! Don't worry about bullsh[t about not looking people in the eye - if you do it in a friendly way, you will get a friendly response (at least in my experience, but being a handsome guy, I suppose I should expect that sort of thing). A lot of that apprehension may be precisely their worry that you won't want to acknowledge their existence, a power thing. Try it: be friendly and you'll be pleasantly surprised. Somebody wisely wrote, "Remember, Australians look for eye contact and facial expressions as an important part of human interactions and communications." Exactly ! Doesn't everybody ?
Frankly, I think that change will come much more quickly than we realise. But only if women can get out and experience the realities of the world.

Joe Lane
rmg1859@yahoo.com.au

'The truth shall set you free, but sometimes it can be a real b...'

Loudmouth: If you (as a handsome guy etc) walked up and communicated
with these women wearing burqa, with the male partners nearby, you were transgressing their conventions at your peril. LOL.

I think you are bullshhhing mate. Or being very very Australian male of the type I rather like but just that cheeky approach could embarrass
a woman and spark off an International incident. LOL.

Next thing you might advise is lifting the veil to see what is underneath.

Tell me Loudmouth, would you go up to a strange woman not wearing a burqa and 'engage her' however friendly? If you did that to me (being a shapely, considered pretty female who doesn't wear a wedding ring) I would interpret it as a openly, yet cheeky, come on or a pass.
And depending on my mood, and the circumstances or venue (a dark alley
with no one around I'd be very worried, like most women)

Unless I knew you of course. Or you were trying to sell me something, or collecting for charity. I would be rightly suspicious of a stranger however, appealing to look at, who approached me or picked me out of a crowd especially if my clothing could become a
talking point? LOL

Women have been told from early age, beware of the stranger who offers
you sweets, etc.

Bush Bunny,

Well, of course, interaction has to be done sensibly - if I lived in a small town, and saw those couples often, of course I would say 'g'day' to the guy directly at first, and later to them both more generally. And of course I would back off if (most unlikely) I got a frosty response. But there are a lot of possibilities in between a polite 'hello' and hitting on someone.

I worked in the local Sunday market for some years (25,000-35,000 customers some weeks) so I saw the same couples often - one of them at first, as you point out, the woman walking behind the guy, then a bit closer, then alongside him, and after a couple of years, on her own. I saw them through two, maybe three, pregnancies. Beautiful woman too, the long gown didn't do much to conceal that. She'd give me a wave and that was it, friendly and just person-to-person, human-to-human interaction, nothing more than that. Other woman were also very friendly and relaxed, but of course no touching - 'haram!' That's okay, clear boundaries make good friends. Many of them got into long conversations with us, all above-board. I guess it's a matter of building up trust, which is easier if you treat people as if they were people, no matter how they are dressed. I saw plenty of Greek and Yugoslav and Russian women too with head-scarves. I just don't know why it bothers other people - a fear of difference, I suppose.

So you're not married, Bush Bunny ? Whereabouts do you live and what do you do on these cold Friday nights ? I might want to sell you something ;)

Joe
Adelaide

Loudmouth: Now that sounds more sensible. You are not as cheeky as I thought? Good salesman eh? What do I do on cold nights eh? (Cheeky as they come isn't he gals) I go to bed with my electric blanket on, and watch my TV or DVDs there. With my doggies. Where I live darlink' the temps go below zero at night, and with electricity so expensive, I save on heating.

But more seriously, in UK, the Muslims are getting a lot of flack, as in France too. As some Muslim countries are theocracies and their laws are tied in with their religious laws that are generally more restrictive than civil laws. Whereas in most democratic
countries any religion is separate from State. in fact S-116 of the Australian constitution states, '...no one should be discriminated against because of their religion, and the State can not favor one religion over another...' That's where the problems are developing in UK. The Muslims want to introduce their religious laws into the country.

I believe that everyone is entitled to civil rights, but not if those
rights trample on others civil rights. So should the Burqa be banned,
I don't think it should, it is a personal choice. It's a matter of education and perception. When in Rome etc., and covering our bodies from head to toe with only eyes peeping out, is to some not a matter of religious faith, but of oppression.

"Are we moving from birqas to nikabs now?" The only difference is some mesh across the eyes, Joe.
If you think that these girls'/womens' moving about in the general community, clad in a tent, somehow will result in a change in their social position/development then that's your belief. I trust you are right.

Blairbar is right. I thought we were discussing the Burqa?
The eyes are covered too when women wear the Burqa.

It is not a religious issue because the Koran does not require women to cover their eyes out in public. The holy men in their society first required that they wear them.

If they want to wear the nikab (only eyes showing) or any of the other head scarf/clothing, well that is fair enough.
But don't tell me that hiding the eyes(soul?) is their 'right'.
They also have the 'right' to be able to see properly when they are out of the house.

If the muslim men (and yes, some women) feel they need to cover everything up, including the eyes, in a modern country such as Australia, then perhaps they aren't really ready to live here.

"If the muslim men (and yes, some women) feel they need to cover everything up, including the eyes, in a modern country such as Australia, then perhaps they aren't really ready to live here."

Thank-you suzeonline for perhaps the most profound comment I have read on this and like forum subjects in the past few months! Absolutely spot on!

BTW if the burqa & niqab brigade were to modify their garb slightly so that the wearers face (identity) is clear from eyebrow to chin level, I think most 'objectors' like myself would have no further argument.

Hi Blairbar,

I certainly don't suggest that "these girls'/womens' moving about in the general community, clad in a tent, somehow will result in a change in their social position/development" directly, but - give it time - an indirect consequence of women's experiences over time, and the internal dynamics of their home-life and social interactions, not least with each other. And of course, the consequences may not be what we command, demand, order, or proclaim as we intrude into the lives of other people. [We are still writing about burqas, right ? Not just any gown-like attire ?]

Blairbar, Suze, MsnDivine,

We have a strange culture in Australia, whereby we support both the freedom of expression and the freedom of belief. In other words, in addition to the expression and beliefs of which we approve from on high 100 %, Australians are allowed to express themselves, and hold beliefs, which do not agree 100 % with our magisterial approval - some expressions and beliefs may be actually quite different from our own superior ones, and may even conflict sharply with our own (horrors ! Out, out !).

Yes, Australia is a funny place, where all sorts of crackpots can quietly go about their business - fundamentalist Christians, comspiracy theorists, UFO-spotters, adherents to any one of the multitude of Marxist splinter-groups and Light-to-Dark Greens, atheist bishops and Christian Socialists, anti-Rudd Labour Party supporters and anti-Labour Party Rudd supporters, and so on and on.

So while I sympathise with your craving to sink the boot into SOMEBODY, anybody, particularly the most vulnerable - I have certainly felt like that at times, myself - I respectfully suggest that how Muslim women dress is not your call - but it IS their right in an Australia which allows, and cherishes, those freedoms.

Joe Lane

'The truth shall set you free, but sometimes it can be a real b...'

Banning the "Burqa...Burkha" is not anything to do with religion feminism or any of the other senseless arguments placed up
We have a law in this country that you cannot enter any secure area with the face covered ....eg A Mask, a Full Face Helmet etc
A Burqa/Burkha covers the face ...hence illegal to wear it in Banks, Courts and etc
I have no problems with the head being covered or all the body for that matter ....but the face must be shown simple as it is
This is the Law of this country now and it needs to be adhered to
If people want to wear the Burqa/Burkha then go to a country that participates in that practice
If I enter your home I enter by your rules if I don't like those rules I leave .....I don't have the right to tell you to change to suit me .........SAME APPLIES TO THIS COUNTRY

dwg "A Burqa/Burkha covers the face ...hence illegal to wear it in Banks, Courts and etc
I have no problems with the head being covered or all the body for that matter ....but the face must be shown simple as it is "

So are you suggesting that the face should be required to be visible in all public places or just in places where the owners/management/law require it?

We should ensure that the law protects owners of property used by the public are able to insist on "credible" standards without risk of penalty on the basis of discrimination and leave it at that. Of course if it's vital to see a muslim woman's face then I have to wonder about men with full beard's.

R0bert

In relation to this storm in an egg-cup, I wonder what proportion of Muslim women wear the burqa (0.1 % ?), the nikab (1 % ?) and what we all agree is the inoffensive (and beautiful) hijab (40-60 % ?) ? But that's about 1.1 %.

In my limited experience of the world, I don't think I've ever seen a woman in a burqa in real-life, and only two or three in a nikab. And forgive my presumption but those 1.1 % would usually be accompanied in the streets and shops by a male relative ? And since the men would have control of their money, isn't it unlikely that women in burqas or nikabs would do banking transactions on their own, without a male relative ? Wouldn't the men do all of that ?

So could any reader who has ever seen an unaccompanied Muslim woman in either a burqa or a nikab, in a bank, please improve my education ?

Most of us agree that wearing such restrictive clothing is oppressive to women, whether Koranic or not (feminists, working so hard to improve the lot of their sisters, must be heartened by the enthusiasm of so many male supporters on this thread) but this is hardly going to be ameliorated by banning, and keeping women indoors. And surely there are more fundamental evils to crack down on, such as arranged marriages and female mutilation, which certainly do infringe on the real human rights of Muslim women ?

Loudmouth - I'll go one better than seeing one out unaccompanied -I've seen one behind the wheel driving slowly and erratically on a main road in my home town and as I approached was thinking this is a drunk, drugged or ill driver. No - it was a black tent who either was a totally inept motorist or sight impaired by the get-up or possibly both. She had three children in the car - all very young and all unrestrained. Obviously the finer points of road rules did not apply either - probably not a cultural obligation where she came from ....

You are correct in that these women are usually not allowed anywhere without the guardian/jailer male but it happens occasionally. More so with the slighter less 'modest' niqab wearers (eyes exposed).

I would like to ask you though since you believe in total freedom of expression - how'd it be if I wore a KKK robe down town? Or does your version only extend to the 'opressed minority migrant' demographic?

divine_msn,
The KKK have nothing on Islam.
Islam is responsible for the brutal deaths of an estimated 250,000,000+ people.
http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/
How many deaths are the KKK responsible for?

Proxy - I used the example of KKK robes as that outfit is on the same paradigm as the burqa and niqab.

Both styles of garb conceal the wearers identity completely.

The proponents of KKK robes offer explanation that this is a costume associated with their friendly organisation which is based on mutual political and wait for it, Christian beliefs. Members wear their hoods to participate in brotherhood rituals and as a sign of belonging to the Ku Klux Klan. Sure, some of those good ole boys & girls might be involved in unsavoury activities but the majority are mostly law abiding citizens.

The proponents of the burqa/niqab offer explanation that the costume is a symbol of religious duty, worn in order to fulfil the requirements of Koranic law. Members wear their hoods as a sign of obligation to and belonging to the Islamic faith. Sure, some of these good ole fundie muzzies might be involved in unsavoury activities but the majority are mostly law abiding citizens.

Of course both lots of 'justification' are total BS. However I bet there will be no CJ Morgans, jjplugs or any of the other apologists stepping forth in the forum to uphold the Klansman's cultural and sartorial rights?

No, those who believe that, as a so-called Multi-cultural nation, we should accept almost anything that immigrants claim to be a cultural 'norm' - provided the group is NOT caucasian, english speaking and Christian will, I wager, be uncharacteristicly silent. Mmmm?

Actually divine_msn, I think you'll find that there's no law against walking down the street in KKK garb in Australia - but you probably wouldn't be allowed in a bank or anywhere much else.

If you'd been keeping up, you'd have already read my argument that there's no need to "ban" silly garments like the burqa, niqab or KKK robe. The reason you don't see people wearing KKK robes about the place is probably because it'd be very inconvenient and people would disapprove of you wearing them.

The burqa will undoubtedly go the same way in time, except for a few fundamentalist nutters. No need to get hysterical about it.

Divine_Msn,
As long as we remember that the KKK was set up specifically as an anti-Black American organisation, dedicated to their extermination or at least to terrorising them, there may not be any real comparison with burqas or khadors or nikabs or whatever. But your wearing of KKK garb would be very likely to have consequences: as a call to violence, it may be regrettably met with equal violence. For all that, I would support the right of KKK members to parade down any street in Redfern IF they were prepared to take the consequences. I'd love to be there.

The wearing of burqas or nikabs or hijabs does not involve anybody outside the Muslim world: it does not represent an attack, or the threat of an attack, on anybody else, quite the reverse, i would have thought: you can't get all that violent 'clad in a tent' (cf. Blairbar). To the extent that it's an assertion of identity or religion, it has more resemblance to punk hair-cuts or muffin-tops and bare midriffs or Catholic wimples or bumcrack tattoos. i.e. personal statements. In time, these too will pass.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, divine Msn, but it's not always about you.

Joe

I think it should be law that all ugly unattractive women have to ware the burqa and camels as well! Thank you very much! lol!

Peterson,

And the guys as well ? That would probably rule you and me out.

For those who are genuinely interested in this issue, and not just intent on yet another round of migrant-bashing, try this:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51689

In Australia, women have fought hard for equal rights, but in many Muslim societies, a dreadful mix of Islam and pre-capitalist patriarchalism has condemned women to inferior and servile positions, with their rights even as human beings diminished, even their rights to life itself. This article covers this in shocking detail:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-tale-of-two-standards/story-e6frg6zo-1225877204907

Written by that noted neo-lberal feminist, Janet Albrechtsen, it should be a call to the sisterhood to put aside their skinny frappacinos and perhaps just think - only for a short time out of their day - about the roles of custom and power in the oppression of their sisters, our fellow human beings.

In the land of the fair go, let's not make it harder for them.

Joe

Racism is here, in many guises
Herald Sun, 28 Jan 2010
Rudd nephew's KKK protest stunt
Daily Telegraph, 26 Jan 2010
Indians bashed, five charged

The Australian, 26 Jan 2010
Rudd nephew 'caught up in KKK stunt'
Herald Sun, 26 Jan 2010.
“We weren’t doing anything that was physically dangerous to anybody,” he said.

But police have disagreed and issued the fines for "riotous behaviour" to Mr Rudd, 36, and fellow protestor Sam King.
................................................................

Seemingly the 'law' can find something illegal in wearing KKK robes.

BTW Loudmouth - do a bit of research on the Klan. It started as a right-wing political movement albeit one with a charter to ensure 'coloureds' remained an underclass. The really nasty stuff came later.

It's not about ME either. I'm old enough to look backward and judge what has happened for good and for bad and why, look forward to what might be for my grandchildren and ponder how current trends may pan out in future. No crystal ball but enough experience of the world and human nature to have some serious concerns about where today's politics and policies may lead.

Divine Ms_n, in late nineteenth century America, Blacks by any name were indeed threatened with extermination: this was the rationale for Booker T. Washington's Atlanta Compromise in 1895 - that he would ensure Blacks never lifted their heads and would accept inferior conditions, provided the KKK and so many other groups put their very real threat to exterminate on hold.

So how do burqas and nikabs imply any such threat to anybody in Australia in 2010 ?

Why are women so devalued, and why aren't the Sisters speaking out ? This article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/hope-at-last-for-hell-on-earth/story-e6frg6z6-1225876662037

details the rape of under-age girls in Aboriginal communities in the Kimberley (but of course, the sisters are not Aboriginal, so it's not really their problem; and usually they are not under-age either, so it's certainly not their problem; and in any case, the women and girls abused are not middle-class, so how on earth can it be the sisters' problem ?). The word 'rape' was not used once in the article (unless I missed it). The difficulty in prosecuting successfully was in gauging the age of the girls - were they under the age of consent or not at the time of the offenses ? Meanwhile, nobody seemed to give a toss about the notion of 'consent' in these cases - even IF the women abused were OVER the age of consent, surely 'consent' means something ? Or is it open-season in Aboriginal communities on a girl once she reaches the 'age of consent' ?

But on the one hand, I have to concede, these are only Aboriginal women, and we have to respect Culture. On the other hand, I've lived in Aboriginal communities and I've known girls and women who have been gang-banged and then suicided. Please don't tell me that respect for Culture is harmless.

No we don't have to respect Culture: maybe all cultures are equally invalid, or at least have abhorrent practices which should be deplored and opposed, no matter where and by whom. Don't equal rights mean anything any more ? In the land of the fair go ?

divine_msn,
The Ku Klux Klan has closer historical ties to the Democrat Party than the Republican Party.
This would undermine your right-wing claim.
In fact, the fourth in line to the US presidency, Robert Byrd,
is a former KKK member who once wrote to the Grand Wizard:
"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see
its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."

"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party,
the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy."
historian Eric Foner

Dear Loudmouth

In previous online and other Forums I've commented about disproportionate levels of sexual violence against women and children of Aboriginal heritage. 'Heritage' as it's difficult for me to reconcile claims of "Aboriginality" when faced with persons having distant Aboriginal ascendants - ie a great-grandparent and all other relatives from another racial group or groups. This gets me into lots of trouble with the politically correct brigade on its own.

When one asserts the commonest perpetrators of this sexual assault (and for that matter, most other violence) are fellow "Aboriginals" then accusations of racism really fly thick and fast.

Jailing of Aboriginals is subject to controversy stirred up by those who believe people of Aboriginal heritage are over-represented in the prison system. Some consider European style incarceration somehow inappropriate. So special concessions should be made? That would be racist indeed! BTW not many "aboriginals" languishing in prison for riding bicycles sans helmuts or crossing roads against red lights. They're there for serious offences.

There's been suggestion non-consenual sexual activity is appropriate in aboriginal cultures where a girl is 'promised' (more culture) to a man she resists. Girls are generally considered 'of age' with first menstruation though this does not always seem to be respected.
I suggest similar stuff happens within some of the delightful 'cultures' we have allowed to be imported into this Nation, those requiring women to be covered completely from sight being of chief concern. Would you dispute this?

Those 'invisible' women would have less voice than the aboriginal girls referred to. Consider - Should a Judge pass a lessor sentence on a man convicted of child rape on basis that in the offenders culture it is acceptable for underage girls (often prepubescent) to be betrothed and he considered the victim his wife? I'd call racism but the PC set would probably waffle on about cultural awareness and sensitivity ....

So Loudmouth - I guess those are my hang-ups. Not racism, feminism, any other isms - just equality in law, decency and standards that apply to all.

Thanks Divine Ms_n,

I would have thought that wearing the veil (60%), the nikab (1%) or even the burqa (0.1%) is a much less serious issue than the rape of women - and under-age girls - in Aboriginal 'communities' (more like ex-communities, once the damage has been done?). In fact, perhaps Aboriginal women and girls could be encouraged to wear the veil and full gown as a strong signal to men to lay off (no pun intended).

I don't think that 'culture' is somehow sacrosanct and beyond criticism, and certainly not if it abuses the weak and breaks the law. Maybe a definition of culture (among the multitude of them) should include reference to power and who defines the nature and utility of women - in both cases, cultural beliefs devalue women in particular and should be actively opposed by anybody who has any respect for their equality and human rights.

Referring to the high incarceration rates of Aboriginal men, perhaps it has something to do with the high offence rates of Aboriginal men. True/false ? Perhaps we shouldn't talk about it because it brings shame ? Stuff it, let's. Why do men commit so many offences ? Is it out of boredom, is it a form of noble resistance to alien domination - or is just a matter of arrogance - 'we can do any f-ing thing we like, it's our country.' Is there a high correlation between Aboriginal male unemployment and offence rates ? Is there also a high correlation between Aboriginal male unemployment and low educational levels ? i.e. the same people may be illiterate or close to it, unemployed AND committing offences ? So why aren't jails being transformed into adult educational institutions and offering literacy courses and training up people in other skills, perhaps to replace the phony TAFE courses that so many are currently enrolled in ?

Joe

Loudmouth

Many thanks for the link to the article A Tale of Two Standards in The Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-tale-of-two-standards/story-e6frg6zo-1225877204907

Now to see where The Stoning of Soraya M is being screened. I wonder if anyone on OLO has seen it yet?

"Now to see where The Stoning of Soraya M is being screened. I wonder if anyone on OLO has seen it yet?"

No Cornflower, but I have read several reviews and it is definately not a 'feel-good' movie. You may leave the theatre saddened and angry about the injustices suffered by women in one of the "cultures" we are tolerating and allowing to flourish within some migrant enclaves.

Recommended viewing for all those who believe we must respect and uphold all the cultural baggage that comes with "New Australians"

Divine Ms_n,

"Recommended viewing for all those who believe we must respect and uphold all the cultural baggage that comes with "New Australians" "

I don't think so ! But it certainly is recommended for anybody who is concerned about human rights, especially those of women. Please don't add to their oppression, give them a fair go. They are not the cause of their own predicament: 'culture' has seen to that and that's what has to be critiqued, as it would be for all cultural practices which oppress the powerless.

Joe

Exactly Loudmouth. They are NOT the cause of their own oppression.

However if you, as an Australian citizen (I presume you are one), uphold the "rights" of Ethnic Pseudo-religious groups that come here to settle and practice cultural traditions which are completely at odds with Australian culture, not to mention fly in the face of our laws - where does that put you in the overall picture?

Are you a proponent of the continued "oppression" of these migrant women and girls? I don't really believe you are, but with one bum cheek planted firmly either side of the fence and an absence of a clearly stated opinion, it's hard to tell.

Perhaps you are a Politician?

Hi Divine Ns_n,

There are a hell of a lot of cultural practices widely available across Australia which many people would find repugnant or at least unsavoury, some of which I am happily guilty of: I hope that when you are Queen, you do not outlaw them :)

First principles: empirically, what harm do burqas, nikabs or hijabs do to non-Mulsim Australians ? None, besides a weird sort of offence taken that people could be different from them and still get by, that Muslims may not be bogans.

How and why Muslim women feel they must veil themselves partly or fully is really up to them, provided they can access the rest of Australian public life and come to understand the pros and cons of the freedoms and rights that are available here. In other words, it is an issue that concerns primarily Muslim women, and the evolution of attitudes towards women and equality within the Muslim community. Hopefully, their Oz sisters will smooth the ride.

I certainly don't feel that I am sitting on the fence on this one: that burning feeling has more to do with too much chili last night.

In Turkey it is banned, France and Belgium too. And in various parts of the world the hadji has been made into a great fashion statement. In Dubai, you see ladies with flowing hadji some with sparkling threads, jeans or mini skirts, makeup and nail vanish, high heels, etc.

I had a letter printed in the local press, and I pointed out when
I was living in Cyprus, we were warned not to go shopping on our own
and to dress sensibly. This was in the Greek quarters and particularly in the Turkish quarters. Single women both of Islamic faith (much stricter) but the Cypriot Greek Orthodox were never allowed out without a chaperone until they were engaged. And then
were always accompanied by a male relative or elder woman. When in Rome of course...

What my argument is if I don't wear a burka or hadji in my own country how do the Australian Islamic men view me? As less godless
or chaste? And subject to sexual abuse or condemnation? If Islamic
women want to wear the burka or whatever, it's up to them. But I still feel by banning it is not the solution at all!

The KKK? Oh dear we are venturing in muddied waters now. They targeted
black people but also Jews, Roman Catholics and anyone who was actually friendly to these groups or were civil rights workers.

The reason was not just racial but political, sexual, religious bigotry and ignorance. 'Nig...s' are like monkeys, they have thick lips'. Actually, primates don't have thick lips at all. And the thicker lips is created from environmental adaptation and considered more evolved than thinner lips in humans.

Interracial marriages were banned in RSA, what about the Hindu caste system? Arranged marriages, honor killings.

If the burka is worn to protect women from abuse by other men, then that says something about how strict Muslims view our society. And let's face it, given legislation against sexual harassment in the work place and domestic abuse, has it improved? OK it's illegal to wolf whistle now, but it still goes on. Who is game to walk out alone at night? I'm not unless I have a protective dog with me.

When people wish to come in Australia, they are escaping sometimes, not always, where racial and religious prejudice still dominates.

Yet, we still condemn some of their cultural conventions. And we are supposed to be enlightened? Tolerance of people's civil rights is fine, providing they don't trample on ours?

It wasn't such a long time ago, some of new Australians were against
interracial or religious inter marriages. This can cause trouble still. So banning the burka will not do one thing to improve tolerance in a multicultural society