The standard of this woeful article is evident in the first three words, where the author refers to a "Senator Cory Belamy". Who is this person, and is he connected somehow to Cory Bernardi?

It appears that in its haste to publish this flame-bait, OLO's usual editorial standards have been applied. Dear oh dear.

An eminently sensible article James.

<< Hiding the face in public is incompatible with accountable adult participation in society. Accordingly, the justification for a “burqa ban” is obvious, practical and necessary and the argument need not go any further. >>

<< If we are to accept the burqa and niqab, what will it do to Australia if such notions are normalised and legitimised? Are we to teach Australian girls they should always be proud to show their face and have a voice in society … unless they’re Muslim? That women’s rights are inalienable and worth fighting for, except where gender oppression is religiously or culturally endorsed? >>

The justification for banning the burqa and niqab while accepting the hijab is very clear.

After reading this article, one is tempted to state that the 'burquas are better at Hungry Jack's'

I find it interesting that so many arguments are based on the premise that the burqa or niqab wearer chooses to wear the ugly and uncomfortable garment. It must be uncomfortable, especially in hot weather, and so inconvenient when eating or speaking or any other activites such as driving. The face covering is bad enough but the long swathing skirts are also difficult to manage, especially if the wearer is looking after children or infants. Surely women would prefer to be free of such a garment and so the assumption must be that that the wearer is indeed coerced to wear it, by whatever means, as suggested by James Mangisi. To ban the burqa would free such women from the oppression of the burqa but would not insist she take up mini-skirts or make-up.

My goodness! I have never read such an ignorant one sided view in my life! and I'm not even Muslim! There are so many things wrong with this article. You do realise that you are arguing to also not allow face masks at a costume party, or masquerade party with your arguments on the social contract of personal accountability… and isn’t that why we enjoy dressing up? Or does this practice not fit so nicely into your argument for ‘womens rights’ and ‘the Australian tradition’?

“The coercion I’m talking about is the threat of … hellfire in the afterlife.”

If this is a form of coercion, then telling your children to do something in five seconds or they’ll ‘find out what happens’…5, 4, 3, 2….1 is a form of coercion. Also, any Christian Relgion that teaches children to obey their parents or risk not going to heaven/going to hell are committing human rights violations.

“the decision over the oppressiveness of western displays of female expression - like make-up, plastic surgery, high heels and so on - is ultimately left at the discretion of the individual woman.”

No one puts them selves through the pain of surgery, the wearing of high heels while standing and dancing for 6 hours, or the application of (very toxic) make-up for 20minutes a day because of choice… they do it out of fear. Fear that the other women at the party will be prettier, fear that their husbands will leave them if they don’t look young, and the growingly popular fear that they will never find someone if they start to get wrinkles. This statement is enlightened, it is not advocating western women’s rights, it is ignorant, head in the sand, stupid.

I am a friendly person, however the burqa prevents me from having even the smallest intraction with the wearer. The reason for this is that next time I meet that woman she won't know who on earth I am as it is a different woman. I then begin to objectify the wearers. Is this a benefit to our society? I know that it is certainly not.

“Conor raises the issue of women in Australia taking men’s names when they marry. But this too is misleading. Many don’t get married at all. And those that do have a variety of options. Many do go the traditional way, opting to take on their partner’s name, some hyphenate and some, like my mother, keep their own surname as an expression of feminist principles and maintenance of their personal identity. Underlying all of this is commitment to the ongoing discussion of female identity.”

As such, many Muslim women don’t wear a head covering at all. And those that do have a variety of options. Many go the traditional way, opting to cover their faces, some just cover their heads and some, like a friend of mine, keep their head uncovered as an expression of her religious identity.

“Are we to teach Australian girls they should always be proud to show their face and have a voice in society … unless they’re Muslim?”

No, we are to teach them that they can be and do anything, as a woman. And there is no shame in being a stay-at-home mum, just as there is no shame in being the next prime minister of Australia. That they can choose to show their legs, their arms, their faces, or cover them if they so CHOOSE. They are allowed to walk through city centres wearing just a bikini, and are allowed to walk through the same city centre covered head to tow. Because in our western modern culture, they have a choice that no one can take away from them. That our laws must protect them from harm, but not take away the choices that we so fervently fight for.

I don’t have the answers but I do know that ‘the Australian tradition’ as you so put it, is one of fighting for your fellow man and a relaxed, inclusive attitude to new ideas.

We should NEVER cross the line in to legislating about what a woman can or cant wear.

It's all very tenuous, isn't it.

The logic leaps that the article requires - often from one sentence to the next - are fairly challenging in themselves.

"So why must the burqa and niqab be banned? Quite simply, in the public sphere there is a fundamental need for identification."

In all places, at all times?

Hardly. How would we then cater for motorcycle couriers, skiers, hockey goalkeepers, cricketers?

The article doesn't even start to allow for such distinctions.

This leads to such naivety as

"Hiding the face in public is incompatible with accountable adult participation in society"

That's just nonsense. I could make a strong case for smoking being "incompatible with accountable adult participation in society". And an equally strong one for banning smoking being "incompatible with accountable adult participation in society".

A pretty indefensible judgment call, whichever way you look at it.

"enshrining “public facial disclosure” law in Australia does not target Islamic women"

Oh yeah? Tell me of another group that would be affected.

But beneath all the attempts to justify the unjustifiable lies a subtler problem.

On what basis do we, the citizens of Australia, believe that it is the task of our government to dictate our clothing?

Let's start with indecency. Tick. Not an issue. It's illegal. The presence or absence of clothing does not alter the principle that it the illegality is in the exposure, not the clothes per se.

And progress to security - Banks etc. There are clearly some basic requirements for visual recognition, and the burqa/niqab does not meet these requirements, along with hockey masks, balaclavas, crash helmets etc.

Fine. Make it a requirement that in these circumstances, the face should be uncovered. End of issue.

Anything else? Not really.

Making the government responsible for dictating a blanket approval/disapproval of particular clothing plays into the hands of the extremist everywhere.

If we think it's ok, we have little moral claim to the high ground if we object to the laws in other countries, where they might have different views on what constitutes "acceptable clothing".

Elise, when you write "If [threatening people with hellfire in the afterlife] is a form of coercion, then telling your children to do something in five seconds or they’ll ‘find out what happens’…5, 4, 3, 2….1 is a form of coercion. Also, any Christian Religion that teaches children to obey their parents or risk not going to heaven/going to hell are (sic) committing human rights violations", you do not need the conditional. Teaching children that there are such places as heaven and hell is a violation of their human rights — a violation that is being increasingly recognised as child abuse. Violating human rights is something that all religions do quite well.

Isn't it great how arguments for banning the burqa constantly alternate between feminism - protecting the woman from coercion - and public security - protecting society from the covered face.

It reminds me of Senator Conroy's argument for the internet filter which keeps shifting from one foot to the other - protecting children from seeing something nasty, and protecting children from being in something nasty.

In both cases, the constantly shifting argument enables the coercive social engineer to keep changing the subject while advocating the same coercion for confused reasons.

Let's take the public safety issue first. Why did this problem only arise during the current era of terrorism and anti-Muslim pogroms? Why did this problem of the social obligation to show your face, never arise in relation to sunglasses, beards, changing your hair, and all the other methods people have used for years (including fugitives from the law) to change their appearance?

Second, let's look at the angle of rescuing women from coercion by their own husbands, fathers, and communities. All people who live with others have to make compromises, some of them hard. If a Muslim woman finds these demands onerous, the freedom of Australian society does give her a choice to leave home and find another more tolerant community.

That will usually be hard. Fact of life: freedom can give people choices; it cannot guarantee all choices will be easy.

The only strong case for using coercion to rescue Muslim women from coercion is in relation to children. Unlike adults, children do not have the option of leaving home. For children under 18, we could consider banning the burqa as an element of their social education - compulsory just like the academic parts of education.

But once a woman reaches the age of 18, we must allow her to make her own choice. The fact that it may be a hard choice is not sufficient grounds for taking that choice away from her.

There's nothing wrong with the niqab or the burqa so cut it out you hard hearted people.
There is nothing wrong at all about the burqa or the niqab IN ANY ISLAMIC COUNTRY.
The whole point is that it is wrong in Australia The highest secular authority in Western Australia and the highest religious authority have said so. End of story.
So why do they persist with demanding our acceptance of this? There is a hidden agenda that some Islamists have. And that is to bit by bit to wring out as many concessions as possib;le. The next is the acceptance of sharia courts and sharia justice.Not the whole package...at first. Its Islamic creep.Bit by bit.They will try to wear us down till at some time they feel we will be resigned to it and say,"What the hell.Give it to them."

socratease

If the Muslims were given the right to the niqab and the burqa and one day they were able to make Australian an Islamic country would non-Muslim women still be allowed the freedom of the education they so desired, the same social norms and to wear what they wanted and where they wanted? These matters are not so far-fetched and need to be CAREFULLY weighed up by all our so-called freedom-loving friendly to Islamic culture nonm- Muslim bleeding hearts.

socratease

@socratease: "If the Muslims were given the right to the niqab and the burqa and one day they were able to make Australian an Islamic country ..."

You are conflating things given with things tolerated. No one is "giving" anyone the right to wear anything. We already have the freedom (as opposed to the "right") to live as we please within proscribed limits of not harming others, and that includes expressing, or not expressing, religious beliefs and customs we may have.

Being able to wear religious headdress is a freedom. Being able to "make Australia an Islamic country" is a power over the rest of us. Don't confuse freedom with power, they are not the same.

"Being able to wear religious headdress is a freedom."

Yes, all should be free to wear the burqa: men, Christians, the non-religious.

What a ridiculous article. Since when did people need to identify themselves in public? Maybe in North Korea but certainly not in Australia. I can't imagine why anyone would want the government to be dictating what we can and can't wear. It amazes me how many people out there don't seem to appreciate the freedoms we have. Of course the thing about freedom is that not everyone makes the same choices.
With regards to Australia becoming an Islamic state, that is just ridiculous. Our way of life and the freedoms and choices it offers us is far more attractive than any fundamentalist religious way of life. The surprising thing about the Burka is that there is anyone actually wearing it. Having said that I haven't seen anyone wearing one in at least several years here in Western Australia. Probably because we have the freedom not to in this country.

But what about assimilation?
How are Muslim women going to assimilate and interbreed with White men if they're all covered up?
Ditto Muslim men, if they're required to be covered from neck to knee how are all the White girls going to see what's on offer?
But then If they're going to interbreed and assimilate then they're not going to be able to keep their religion, either that or their White partner will have to give up their culture and convert.
Remember how I pointed out that the First Australian Genocide left an irreconcilable mess?
How big is the disaster going to be after the Second Australian Genocide,the White Genocide? There's 18 million of us.
ASSIMILATION
IT WON"T WORK SO WHY DO IT?

Another problem not considered by those who want to coerce women into freedom: What if some ultra-traditionalist communities react to a ban by imprisoning women within houses or gated communities to hide them from the authorities?

At least now, women are able to move around in public and have contact with other women not wearing burqas. That gives them a starting point to contemplate rebelling or leaving home if they so wish. Living in a free country - having a right to the protection of the law and access to things like womens' shelters - gives them the freedom to do so if they choose it.

@socratease, your ugly display of hatred towards all things Islamic strips the mask of benevolence from the anti-burqa lobby to reveal it for what it is. This call to ban the burqa has nothing to do with emancipation or public safety; these are just pretexts for stomping on a culture which some people are uncomfortable with.

All those females who wish to wear these absurd garments should export themselves to countries where they are acceptable.They are offensive to the Australian culture and are certainly not part of a civil society anywhere.

Why do these people come here if they have to stand out and be so conspicuous ..and then say they are find it hard to assimilate.

Of course its going to be hard, if one insists on wearing a Bin Liner over ones head.

But then if one does ones home work its not hard to find the real reason

Its the same reason why they are insisting on buildng a mosque near Ground Zero ..and callng it Cordoba House.

Easy really

Don't be such a tease, bigmal.

>>But then if one does ones home work its not hard to find the real reason. Its the same reason why they are insisting on buildng a mosque near Ground Zero ..and callng it Cordoba House. Easy really<<

And that reason is... what?

The generous spirit of the likes of Rhys Jones is misplaced.The burqa is an explicit sign that a muslim woman does not want to be assimilated. Leslie

I just realized, I didn't even need to debate this one.
Unmasking the bigotry behind the prohibitionist arguments was easy.
Standing back and letting the bigots do it for me is even easier.

We're waiting for an answer to Pericles' question.

And here's another question from me: What has "assimilation" got to do with anything? Isn't that what the Cybermen say on Dr Who? "You will be assimilated!" Just before they say, "Resistance is useless!"

CJ Morgan, Ludwig, pemmy, just_dulcie, Rhys Stanley, Pericles etc

How are you going to enforce a burqa ban?

Are you going to arrest women who defy the law and wear a burqa?

What will you do if a few thousand women protest the ban by parading through the streets of Melbourne wearing burqas?

Don't be ridiculous!

There are certain circumstances - eg entering a bank or testifying in court - where a burqa ban may be justified. For the rest, grow up! This isn't even worth discussing.

Besides I know of no better way to encourage the wearing of burqas than banning them.

Pericles,

About the ground zero mosque or whatever. I suspect this is a storm in a teacup. It will blow over. Just a thought, tho'

--The German Government would be within its rights in setting up a German cultural centre next door to Auschwitz.

--The Australian Government has the right to set up a memorial to the first fleet next to Uluru.

--Jyllands Post has the right to publish cartoons of Muhammad.

--And Muslims definitely have the right to erect some sort of a "cultural centre" within two blocks of ground zero.

In each case I would defend the rights of the parties concerned to do it.

But in the unlikely event that any of the above-named parties asked my opinion as to whether they SHOULD go ahead I would counsel them to refrain.

"The generous spirit of the likes of Rhys Jones is misplaced.The burqa is an explicit sign that a muslim woman does not want to be assimilated. Leslie"

And why the hell should she have to ? One of the values that Australians treasure, surely, is the right to choose. How and why we choose is up to us, each of us.

Assimilation, sameness, is NOT an Australian value. Otherwise, all you NRL supporters would be shipped off to NZ and stamp-collecting would be banned as a minority interest. And God help us left-handers.

How is this anybody's business besides the women involved ?

The following summarises James Mangisi's view:

"Australian men and women have fought bravely over many generations for the right of all people, men and women, Aboriginal and white, local and migrant, to participate fully in public life. No one is forced to participate but"...

This fight was successfull indeed, which is good, but this "right" is still one-sided: surely we all got the right to participate, but what about the opposing right to not-participate, to opt-out? Is it indeed true that "No one is forced"? where could one go? where could one possibly run away and hide from contemporary society?

So long as the option is not available, it is impossible to honestly speak about some "social contract" or a breach thereof!

Yuyutsu "where could one possibly run away and hide from contemporary society?"

There are plenty of alternatives in your local community, but what are you talking about, Nimbin or something more extreme?

Nimbin is fine but of course the State has to intervene where necessary to protect people and being proactive is better than reacting.

[Deleted for flaming].

If we are going to ban the burqa then men should also be banned from growing full beards and full face motor cycle helmets should also be banned.

We have facists in Islam,Jewish and Christian faiths.Bush by presidential decree abolished habeas corpus,Obama brought in preventative detention, ie even if you are suspected of a crime,you can be indefinitely detained without legal council.Now Obama wants to legalise assassination of suspected terrorists.Are we plain stupid or just apathetic?

Dear Cornflower,

First I must clarify that I am not seeking a personal solution (unless government-control in Australia gets significantly worse, to an unlikely extent). I wouldn't even feel comfortable in a place like Nimbin (nor actually would a muslim woman wearing a burqa). Personally, unlike Australian-born citizens, I have given my consent to a "social contract" when I became an Australian citizen, and it is my aim and preference to work from within that framework to reduce the coercive imposition of governments on individuals to the very minimum. Please note that I am not against a social-contract, so long as it is voluntary.

To the best of my knowledge, Nimbin residents have no extraterritorial status or legal exemptions of any kind. If for example a burqa-clad muslim was required to provide evidence in court without her burqa, living in Nimbin would offer her no protection.

My first preference is to reduce government impositions to the minimum across the board. Short of that, perhaps it may be possible to declare some regions as a refuge, where fewer laws and regulations apply, perhaps even a few levels of that, where remoter regions enjoy a greater degree of independence from the law than those closer to major cities (this for example would do justice to those aboriginal people who resent the white occupation and way of life, but it should not be reserved only for aboriginees). Once a feasible alternative exists, yet a person still prefers to live in and enjoy the benefits of a city, then they can be assumed to have agreed to some social-contract and have less grounds to blame the state for its impositions. However, implementing such a scheme is difficult and as I just mentioned anyway, the best is to eliminate most impositions for everyone, except those impositions that are truly essential to protect other individuals.

Author James Mangisi requires, in addition to life experience, irrefutable facts to peddle his trite of habitual monkey see, monkey do, chronic copying and importation of overseas events which are then superimposed onto Australian society for the purpose of instilling fear and panic amongst the gullible.

His article lacks creditability, utilises highly emotive language and asinine clichés in place of the erudite equability of fair and honest thought.

Mr Mangisi’s musings appear to be mirroring the a previous Federal Court deliberation under the under the Racial Discrimination Act/Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in which the complainant, The Council of Australian Jewry sought adjudication on material posted on the Internet by Dr Fredrick Toben which Australia’s Jewish population found offensive.
The Court found in favour of the complainant ruling that the material posted on the internet would engender in Jewish Australians a sense of being treated contemptuously, disrespectfully and offensively.

After reading Mr Mangisi’s article on OLO plus what he has posted on his blog it seems to me that the Federal Court would also find his trite to be contemptuous, disrespectful and offensive to Muslim women whom in Australia (emphasis Australia) under their own volition, choose to wear the Burqa or Hijab in accordance with their culture and what to them, they feel comfortable in.

Why in the world would we in Australia want to legislate to prohibit a woman from wearing garments that cover the bits and pieces she does not want to expose to men she is not related to or married to?

Her preferences of attire as dictated by her cultural modesty and personal comfort are surely a matter for her alone. It should not be within the jurisdiction of the courts or of those leering with desirous, dodgy intent to adjudicate on which bits and pieces of her body that she must expose.

These women willingly conform without question to the requirements of facial exposure for identity purposes in the day to day formalities of life in Australian society which to me fully fulfils their obligations to the society that they are a part of.

In a recent discussion in a U3A class, there was a difference of opinion regarding whether the wish to wear a face-concealing garment reflected a cultural or a religious imperative. I asked whether the difference was important — whether the right of an individual to act in a way that many fellow citizens found discomforting was stronger if it was prompted by a religious belief than by a cultural convention. Quite a few thought it was. If so, would that be a worry? By the way, most of us understood that the wearing of a burqa reflected a cultural rather than a religious imperative. Is that true?

What a silly argument all round! The writer is mistaken about so many things perhaps the most important being the distinction between the undesirability of behaviour and need for legal intervention by the state.

Couldn't help noticing this "Please note that I am not against a social-contract, so long as it is voluntary" from Yuyutsu. Err..if you think the social contract should be voluntary then you don't really understand what the social contract is. It's not something you sign up for - its the implicit relationship between the state and the citizen.

Yuyutsu,

Thank you for the explanation. I might not go as far as you, however it is agreed that government is interfering unnecessarily in the private lives of citizens. You may have noticed this theme in my posts on other subjects. For instance, I regard it as an abomination and an abuse of power that an unwitting citizen can be declared to be in an 'de facto relationship' equating to marriage, without ever intending to be and entirely without her/his consent.

I would like there to be regular rolling review of all legislation and especially the regulations and interpretations enacted by bureaucrats under delegation from the minister.

Hilarious :)

The Voice of 'Reason' (Morgan)

"The standard of this woeful article is evident in the first three words,..."

The Voice of Ludwig

"An eminently sensible article James"

The Voice of Elise

"My goodness! I have never read such an ignorant one sided view in my life! and I'm not even Muslim!"

THEN....there is Pericles... ooh my

"In all places, at all times?"
and
"The article doesn't even start to allow for such distinctions."

Comment: Er..'no' your are correct but..the article assumes the readers have a tiny bit of common sense.

Then Manorina:

All those females who wish to wear these absurd garments should export themselves to countries where they are acceptable.

The Author:

The current debate has been hijacked by cultural relativists and religious apologists who insist on making this a discussion about xenophobia and the rights of religious freedom.

To which I say "Amen"

How extraordinary, Boaz, that you continue your almost perfect record, of grasping the wrong end of the stick, lifting it high over your head and brandishing about it like some form of "I'm with Stupid" banner.

Whose arrow points straight down.

>>The Author: The current debate has been hijacked by cultural relativists and religious apologists who insist on making this a discussion about xenophobia and the rights of religious freedom. To which I say "Amen"<<

This is so diametrically opposed to the debate that has been conducted here, I'm forced to wonder whether you occupy the same dimension in time and space. Perhaps you are merely the protrusion into our dimension of a hitherto unknown intergalactic being, struggling to learn our strange and wonderful ways.

The majority of posters here, by some distance, have concurred that it is nothing to do with "religious freedom", and everything to do with the freedom of the individual.

Furthermore, it is only the "ban it at all costs" brigade who make a song and dance about the religion of the wearer.

As indeed would your own contribution to the discussion, if you were honest enough to make one.

Matilda,

Yes, we need to clarify the vocabulary we are using. I was under the impression that in English, a contract means something which two parties agree on, but you include in the definition of that noun also "the implicit relationship between the state and the citizen" (albeit in my specific case, and that of other immigrants, this relationship is in fact explicit).

Can I therefore deduce that in your dictionary, the implicit relationship between a rapist and his victim also constitutes a contract, as in: "You relax and open your legs nicely, then I will refrain from sticking this knife in your throat"? now suppose that victim managed to escape - would you then blame her for breaching that social contract?

Dear Cornflower,

Thank you. The list of abominations is long and painful to live with. I would like to believe that for the most part, the legislators and beaurocrats meant well, that what they had in mind was to prevent people from being bad or naughty. However, they fail to understand that what they did is in fact preventing people from being good. One can only be good by freely choosing to do good deeds (and refrain from bad deeds): being coerced to perform good actions, does not count!

Take your example: Suppose a couple waits for more certainty and an auspicious moment to let the world know that they are in a love-relationship, but the government jumps ahead and declares them to be related prematurely, then they are prevented from making their friends and relatives share their happiness. In a tax/benefits context, they are prevented from letting their good-citizenship shine by informing the authorities themselves once their relationship in fact turns financial.

Or in the case of the burqa: A Muslim woman that is forced to unveil in public, loses the opportunity to grow, to reflect on her own feelings in her own good time, emancipate herself from within and eventually realise that she actually would like to be part of society (if she does) and that the burqa no longer serves her in that or in any other meaningful way, so then she can joyfully cast it away. If on the other hand she is forced to unveil, she will only feel shame, resentment, bitterness, hatred, and is likely to join Al-Qaeda or something as revenge.

The establishment is fixed on material results and quick fixes. In their ignorance they fail to understand that the means are at least as important, if not even more important, than the results. They also fail to understand that happiness is subjective, not objective, that happiness cannot be granted by others - that true and lasting happiness is derived from one making progress and improving their (inner and outer) conditions using their own efforts after arriving at wise choices on their own.

Yuyutsu,

You lost me for a while there with all the "social contract" stuff. Some of us aren't so big on Rousseau around here as folks are in Europe.

But you've looped around to a key idea I can agree with: that the end does not necessarily justify the means, except in the fairytale land of instant Utopia, where there's a quick fix for everything.

If people feel that traditional face-covering is a tool of misogynist oppression, then by all means campaign for a law to counter it - by making it an offence to force a woman to wear it against her will.

For others who just feel uncomfortable looking at someone clothed in traditions different to their own - well I'm not exactly inspired by some of the limp, try-hard fashions I see around me either, so you show me your fashion police badge and I'll show you mine.

Westralis, there you go again with the threats and passive/aggressive behaviour.
The Toben Case is NOT a hammer to silence dissent, unless you're a Shoah survivor you don't get to have a say in what is or is not offensive to that minority group or indeed any other.
Jeremy Jones was reacting to the perceived offense and hurt caused by Toben to living victims of Nazi internment camps and their families, whatever other connotations there are surrounding the case didn't arise in the courtroom but rather the court of public opinion.
I've watched and read everything Toben has put out ,it's barely coherent at the best of times and as far as Historical Revisionists go he's not even really in the same league as the likes of Bradley Smith or Mark Weber.
James Mangisi, even though I vehemently disagree with him has put forth a well thought out article which largely eschews sensationalism.
Westralis,stop being a Lone Ranger, you may dream of yourself as the White Knight, the vigilante fighting the good fight with your non White sidekick to give you moral authority but the whole act is wearing thin and I for one am not falling for it.
For what it's worth this is still a mostly free country, we don't need reactionary viewpoints like yours stifling the more timid voices in the community.

This article is one of the best I have read in regard to the wearing of face-covering garments like the burqa or the niqab.

The diagrams included, that showed the difference between these face-covering garments, and the more common head covering scarf garment
(the Hijab), were particularly helpful in this debate.
Many people have been ignorant of these facts.

I totally agree with the authors sentiments in banning the wearing of the Burqa and Niqab in public places. I see absolutely no place for these oppressive garments in a country like Australia.

I believe that most of the women who wear these allover coverings when out in public, whether forced to wear them or by choice, would secretly welcome a ban of them in public places.
They must surely be very uncomfortable in the hot months, and when eating in public?

It is not a matter of the 'right' to wear what they like in public, but more about the vastly greater number of people out there in public life who have the 'right' to converse with human faces properly.

If people are unable by law to wear helmets or balaclavas in banks, post offices, courts and government buildings etc, then neither should women be allowed to wear face-covering clothing in these places.

@ Suzeonline.
In the bank you'd only need to show your face once, to open the account, given the large number of women working in the banking system this could be done behind closed doors without any fuss.
Most transactions use PIN or signatures, and I suppose Muslim women don't use net banking either?
Furthermore why the concern for their comfort? High heels aren't comfortable according to my wife.
Third point, what makes you think they want to talk to you?
I don't know about you but I don't spend my life wondering "Why isn't that person talking to me?"
Like a typical Lefty you bang on all the time about "Spewing Hatred" then when it comes to Muslim women the claws come out.
It's the Leftists disease, every person with brown skin is a victim,err....except when they're not...or Y'know whatever!
The other night I sat in as an African Man absolutely decimated a pair of Lefties in a debate about Race, Racism and PC,when they found themselves confronted with someone with strong views on the subject you could see them visibly shrinking into themselves.
The African man was disgusted with them and apologised to me of all people for making a scene, when I explained that White people in this country are taught from birth that they are "dirty" and that talking about race is "not nice" he laughed and said he understood.
Educated Black people end up empowered by higher learning and educated White people emerge from the same system intellectually stunted and unable to think, what's up with that?
You'd better learn how to talk about race because if you do happen to talk to one of these "oppressed" Islamic women you might end up caught flat footed and get a right roasting.

.

A legal Australian burqa & niqab !

.

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

This freedom, like all others, should be preserved.

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

Similarly, mini-skirts, shorts and bikinis shock the public eye in Islamic cultures and are illegal in terms of the Shariah which, in many countries, forms the basis of the national law.

Turkey and Tunisia are two notable exceptions to the rule. Whilst these two countries are predominately of Islamic culture, their national law forbids the wearing of the burqa and the niqab in the interest of secularism.

Also, the Egyptian Prime Minister Nazif recently declared that the niqab was "a denial of woman". This followed a similar declaration by the highest religious authority in Egypt in November 2009. Islam is, of course, the predominent religion in Egypt.

As anyone who has travelled extensively will have observed, Islamic dress comes in all shapes and forms, with a large variety of colours and tissues. Some of them can be quite beautiful, even the pitch black burqas and niqabs, if they are fashioned in silk and well-tailored.

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

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

The athorisation should apply to adults only.

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

Police, military, schools, nurses, trades people, religious orders and many others all have specific, distinctive dress, why not people of Islamic faith ?

.

.

Oops ... I meant to say ...

.

"The athorisation should apply to CONSENTING adults only !"

.

Sorry about that.

.

.

Oops and oops again ...

.

I am sure you will all have corrected my spelling of "INacceptable to "UNacceptable" ...

which I am sure you will all agree, is quite unacceptable ...

.

Sorry about that too !

.

Welllll... having been beaten to death by crusading (Jihading?)Pericles...(yet again) I guess I better make some original contribution.... (licks wounds)

@Suz.. It is not a matter of the 'right' to wear what they like in public, but more about the vastly greater number of people out there in public life who have the 'right' to converse with human faces properly.

Now..my contribution is simple.. why does it have to be harder than what Suze said? She is right...for what I hope are obvious reasons.

The religion of the wearer is an issue if the person claims they wear it out of 'religious obedience'.. rather than 'clothing choice'

Well..it's an issue to me for sure, even if not for others.

It's an issue for me because the 'religious obedience' part is where it get's dangerously close to the baggage which goes along with that mindset.. the 'other' things which drive people of that faith when they see such a thing as the Burqa as being a religious requirement.

@ Pericles.. strange how those kind words of yours about me being from some other dimension have been directed at you more often than not by very clear thinking people .. if not the same words..at least the sentiment. Let's face it.. you can read "until they are brought into subjection" and see "tolerance and virtue".. so that kind of wraps it up for me. Or.. more accutately, you simply don't see such sentiments as having any relevance to 'today'.
When someone's thinking is that far gone it's a big ask to fix it, and far above my pay scale.

Banjo Paterson:
<< This freedom, like all others, should be preserved ...
I propose that we do not pass a law banning Islamic dress. I propose that we pass a law specifically authorising it under certain conditions. >>

From there your argument wanders into something between a charter for the fashion police and a registered way of dressing for people of certain cultures, which will evoke some deja vu for students of history.

But I'd just like to clear up a common confusion about freedom, which ties in with some people's notion of a "social contract".

In a free country we do not live by the grace of an enumerated list of specific "freedoms" generously granted to us by laws, bills of rights, and so on. For example I do not need any law or permit to say I may leave my home town and go live in another town.

The law simply has nothing to say on most personal activities and choices, until some necessary rule enabling society or the state to function, or protecting people from harm, becomes violated.

(This is one of the legal concepts which proponents of a bill of rights often have difficulty understanding. Once you enumerate rights, then everyone must live within an envelope of things they are authorized to do - a social contract, in other words - and you risk legislators and courts saying, "Is that all?" Effectively substituting those explicit rights for any presumption of freedom.)

So there is no specific freedom permitting a person to wear or not wear head coverings. This is just a personal area where the law does not intrude. And the author of the article fails to give any good reason why the law should do so.

Posted by Yuyutsu, "(albeit in my specific case, and that of other immigrants, this relationship is in fact explicit).

Can I therefore deduce that in your dictionary, the implicit relationship between a rapist and his victim also constitutes a contract, as in: "You relax and open your legs nicely, then I will refrain from sticking this knife in your throat"? now suppose that victim managed to escape - would you then blame her for breaching that social contract?"

Yuyutsu I can only conclude that your extremely offensive example arises from your weak grasp of the English language or lack of understanding of the culture you have entered. (Ironic really since I was actually agreeing that banning particular clothing is not really a good idea) "Social contract" refers ONLY to the relationship between the state and the individual and no other circumstances - "Social contract" is a philosophical concept not a dictionary definition - (crudely, the state offers protection and representation in exchange the citizen (or resident) submits to the will of the state). The "will of the state" refers to any and all laws and legal directions. While normally I would be inclined to agree that immigration makes this relationship explicit - clearly it does not do so where the immigrant does not understand the concept!

There could not be a better argument against the concept of a Bill of Rights than this.

Thank you suzeonline.

>>It is not a matter of the 'right' to wear what they like in public, but more about the vastly greater number of people out there in public life who have the 'right' to converse with human faces properly.<<

"Section 2 Clause 14 (a)ii shall read:

Every citizen shall have the right to converse properly with a human face. For the avoidance of doubt, this requires any Citizen to remove any face covering when requested by any other Citizen, whether or not they feel inclined to converse with the requesting Citizen. Concomitantly, it is the right of any Citizen to demand that another Citizen remove any form of covering from their facial area, at any time and under any circumstances"

Yep. That should do it.

>>She is right...for what I hope are obvious reasons.<<

I thought you were against these kind of "rights", Boaz?

Incidentally...

>>The religion of the wearer is an issue if the person claims they wear it out of 'religious obedience'.. rather than 'clothing choice'<<

This will clearly require an extension the above clause.

"Section 2 Clause 14 (a)iii shall read:

Every citizen shall have the right to require any other citizen to declare, when requested, their motive for choosing the clothing that they are wearing. For the avoidance of doubt, if any citizen should respond "my religion requires it", the requestor has the right to demand that the apparel in question be removed, forthwith."

Great days, Boaz. Great days.

Matilda,

I admit my ignorance - but what a failure on behalf of the government to provide lessons on the philosophy of Rousseau to all immigrants, then have them tested to ensure they thoroughly understood it, as part of the requirements for attaining an Australian citizenship.
In fact, the Australian consul who interviewd us, should probably be sacked for not even mentioning Rousseau and his implicit contracts before granting us permanent-resident visas.

Instead, my explicit contract with the Australian government, in plain English, is: "... that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen".

I made no other contract, and those born in Australia have never signed or verbally agreed to any similar contract at all.

My example was offensive indeed, deliberately in order to demonstrate how offensive the demands of authorities are. For someone who has not requested protection in the first place (notwhistanding the reality that the state is unable to protect anyone anyway and that respresentation has become a farce), the demand to follow laws and regulations (or else...), when placed on unconsenting individuals, amounts to just that.

As an Australian, I treasure my right not to have to talk to every Tom, Dick or Harry if I don't want to. However, it appears that some contributors here are demanding that Muslims must make themselves available at all times when they in public to be talked to, that they must engage in conversation with whoever demands it and that they must keep their faces bare at those times.

Did somebody mention profiling ?

If I were Muslim, or any sort of believer, I would tell you guys to go to buggery. Stop being so up yourselves, you're not the centre of the universe.

By gee, the authoritarian impulse is not very far below the surface, is it ?

Joe

@ Loudmouth.
Zing! Awesome post, the staunchest Lefty goes all Twinset and pursed lips when the subject of Islam comes up.
Might have something to do with the fact that Islam has thus far proved impervious to the Trotskyites "Scientific Racism" as well as Right Wing assimilationism and every other Wacky "ISM" at our disposal.
Anti Racism and Leftism are highly regimented, authoritarian and reactionary, just Imagine if, as these people are saying the government Running dogs were let loose on "morals", it'd make the Anti Terror laws look like the CWA constitution.
I can see the current crop of Lefty busybodies and Ward Heelers let loose in Lakemba and Coburg with video cameras hidden in their Sherpa hats, they love power and they love to rat on people.
Oh! And to whomever mentioned Rousseau, I think you'll find he was almost immediately proven wrong by a little soiree called the French Revolution, "egalitarianism" always comes with a body count.

Many people feel uneasy when confronted by young adults wearing hoodies, especially when there is no obvious climatic justification for wearing them. In some public locations, hoodie wearing is banned. Are the unease and the ban justified? Would a community be justified if it took exception to swaggering young men walking around with their faces concealed? Would taking exception be more or less justifiable if the young men claimed that they were required by religion or culture to keep their faces concealed? Is there a point at which the right of the majority to feel comfortable with the way others dress becomes more important that the right of those others to dress as they please? Should the answer be different if right to dress as you please is replaced with right to drive on your preferred side of the road?

GlenC and other sympathesisers, you must be morethan half daft if you cant see that hoodies and burqa wearers are making political statements that are NOT in public interest. All we are saying is that neither head dresses are justified except fpr inimical purposes.
socratease

Except that hoodie wearers are routinely associated with violent crime whereas crimes committed by Muslim women wearing burqas are exceedingly rare.

Just google "hoodies" and "crime".

How do you like that Jay .... more knowledge from the "forbidden zone" :-)

Women wearing burqas in Australia are few and far between.

Why, then, one wonders, is there so much heated debate about the issue? As if everyone is offended on a daily basis by having to look at a burqa-clad woman?

If women wear burqas because the male members of their family insist upon it, as some people claim, doesn't this mean that if the State says they can't wear the burqa these women will most likely be forbidden by those males to go out into the world?

Is this a just outcome?

Of all the non-issues, this burqa hysteria must be close to the top of the list.

Socratease, how did you conclude from my questions that I was a sympathiser? And with which side did you conclude I sympathised?
David Jennings, are you saying, while granting that face concealing can sometimes be disconcerting, that it’s nevertheless OK for Muslim women to engage in it but not young men because it is reasonable to expect the public to be able to make prompt and accurate judgments about whether a particular instance of face covering is threatening? If so, is it fair to leave the public with the responsibility of having to make this judgment? And if reasonable, is it also realistic? Is it relevant that the niqab and the burqa make it impossible even to be sure that the wearer is a woman?

OH DAAAVIIID! *Squeal*
I'd be more worried about White Chavs and African Gangstas than Muslim women too, hip hop or "urban" culture glorifies idiocy, crime and substance abuse, Islam pretty much does the opposite.
Hey have you seen the "Hijab hands free", Muslim women tuck their phones into their Hijab while driving, very clever.
I'd honestly rather see Muslims on the street than skinny Anglo Meth heads with white singlets and those stupid Burberry caps.
"Eshay Adlay"

*booming voice from the 'other' dimension"....

Dear Pericles.. or is it Arthur..or.. Martha ? I sometimes wonder which hat you are wearing?

From another thread you posted:

"Similarly, the cutting off of hands is absolute insurance that we the community are protected from any possible repeat crimes by the person concerned." (le'ts call that a post from "Pericles/Arthur")

Yet in this thread you are mocking Suz online and myself..using the same logic to persuade people of the wisdom of banning a burqa which is the very distillation of symbolism for the cutting off of hands.

We'll call that post "Pericles/Martha"

Please make up your mind!

Seems to me you just like arguing?

Let's use the kiss method. Keep it simmmmple.

"No face coverings in public places except for helmets or welding visors (or similiar safety devices)" full stop. Let's just vote on it and it's a done deal.

Aaaah democracy at work :)

@Briar Rose, you ask:

Women wearing burqas in Australia are few and far between.
Why, then, one wonders, is there so much heated debate about the issue?

Simple Prickle, if you saw some bloke walking down the main drag in a Hitler Youth uniform, complete with swastika's and jackboots..hmmm you jussssst might wonder what is going on.. and if there are 'more' of them. The Burqa, to me..is the moral equivalent, because the Quran, on which that 'clothing choice' is based says that the wearer is part of a community which is called to place me and my community and you by the way under subjection.

They are very tolerant though :) in fact..all they want from us is a small tax.. called the "Jizya" that's all. We can follow our own faith... But see what one of their major commentators says about this tax (please actually read it)

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20986

.

Dear federalist,

.

Thank you for your remarks.

You indicate:

"In a free country we do not live by the grace of an enumerated list of specific "freedoms" generously granted to us by laws, bills of rights, and so on".

Agreed: in a free country, the best laws are no laws - as long as everybody is as reasonable as you and me and the majority of our compatriots.

The problem is there is no guarantee a Hitler or a Stalin may not rise to power democratically or otherwise and install a dictatorship.

The absence of laws guaranteeing individual freedoms would offer him an open boulevard.

We have a duty as responsible citizens to "act with reasonable care" and build our house in bricks rather than straw or sticks.

The stakes are sufficiently important for us to take a few elementary precautions even though there may be no immediate risk in view.

Naturally, any system of protection entails inconveniences and restraints. These have to be weighed against the enhanced security it provides.

It is not just a problem of "Bill of Rights". Our constitution is obsolete. The constitutional monarchy is a museum piece. It needs to be replaced (in brick) by a carefully constituted republic, a president elected by universal suffrage, and clearly defined executive and legislative responsibilities.

Back to the burqa:

The essence is that, even in Islamic countries where legal reforms are applicable, many women still do not enjoy full citizenship status, due to deeply imbedded cultural traditions and religious conservatism. They have no individual existence. They cannot contract anything with anybody, not even their own marriage. Brides do not participate in the actual wedding ceremony. They sit and wait in another room until they have been transferred from the legal ward of their father to the legal ward of their husband.

The burqa and niqab symbolise and materialise women's non-existence. For society, they are invisible.

It will take generations for reforms to become effective in Islam.

The intelligent approach for us in Australia is to patiently unweave the thread, not chop it with an axe.

.

Banjo... patiently unweave the web ? :) sure.. but that could be quite threatening to the warm fuzzy brigade.. u know..those folk who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil....even of a Stalin, Pol Pot or a Muhammad. They all committed genocide, slaughtering masses of people systematically, and based on their core beliefs.

Would you please assist me in the case of those who the Burqa symbolizes.. how would you 'unweave' that particular web ?

Could it be by stacking together relevant information about the beliefs which underly such garb, and demonstrating that they are inherrently evil, and have no place in Australian or any free society?

I hope so.

Oh Boaz. It's sad that you have to scrape the barrel so hard, to find something to whack me with.

Such a pity it turned out to be a piece of wet straw.

>>From another thread you posted: "Similarly, the cutting off of hands is absolute insurance that we the community are protected from any possible repeat crimes by the person concerned.".. Yet in this thread you are mocking Suz online and myself..using the same logic to persuade people of the wisdom of banning a burqa which is the very distillation of symbolism for the cutting off of hands.<<

In the other thread (context is everything, Boaz) I was comparing the chopping-off of heads with the chopping-off of hands, by way of deterrence.

It's often called s-a-r-c-a-s-m, old chum.

Banning the burqa is not going to deter anyone from a life of crime.

The "symbolism" of the burqa has nothing to do with criminal acts.

>>"No face coverings in public places except for helmets or welding visors (or similiar safety devices)" full stop. Let's just vote on it and it's a done deal.<<

Why, when it is only in specific places that face-covering can compromise security, do you require a universal ban?

I know the answer, of course. And so do you. You just don't have the courage to articulate it, because it is embarrassing to have to admit it in public.

But you come very close, don't you...

>>The Burqa, to me..is the moral equivalent...<<

The moral equivalent of what, we ask?

>>>...some bloke walking down the main drag in a Hitler Youth uniform, complete with swastika's and jackboots<<

Yep, that's our Boaz.

Nazi uniform, Jackboots? Sounds like someone's channeling Keith Moon.
Anyone who says Hitler is dead needs their eyes checked, he's bigger now than he ever was in real life.
I have been corresponding with an Egyptian Nationalist of late and he's fighting against a "Hitler Was Right" campaign in his country, the Fundies are all going around filling kids heads with stories about WW2 and exhorting them to massacre Jewish people.

Ever heard of the Ba'ath movement?
They're dyed in the wool National Socialists for the most part who oppose fundamentalism, so it's coming from both sides.
Once you start taking a Macro view of these issues it becomes a weird, bewildering mess, Banning Burqas is just like dropping a pebble in a pond, ripples go out and you can't predict where it'll stop.

Jay

Shhhh must not say nasty things about the dear old Muslims. Of course we all know they want to massacre Jews but we don't say it in polite company.

Anyway it's all Israel's fault, don't ya know? If it weren't for those nasty Israelis the Muslims would be the Jews' best buddies.

[Deleted for abuse. Excessive use of capitals.]

@Stevenlmeyer.
Oh it be, it just be, how much coverage did the attack on the Chabad centre during the Mumbai outrage get? I doubt most people would even know what went on outside the Western death toll.
I'll admit I'm not Israels number one fan but it's nothing personal, not on the level the Islamo Fundies anyway.
As you can imagine I get into endless debates about whom we should hate and why, my rule of thumb is if they've done unto us, do unto them, which in the case of my people, at this period in time is restricted to a minority of Muslims, (a minority of Muslim hardliners at that, they're not all violent insurgents)

Socratease, I swear when reading your words, your fluency, your coherence, your mastery of the keyboard, comes across as almost poetic. I can almost imagine I am listening to your namesake in 406BC, standing there all alone as he demands fair trial for the generals, being scapegoated after their bittersweet victory against the Spartans at Arginusae.

The story of the generals - six of whom were executed in a democratic fit of rage without even individual trials as the law required - reminds me of how easy it is to dream up all sorts of rationalisations when what you really want to do is lynch somebody.

But even the Athenians when looking for someone to lynch did not sink so low as to pick on a bunch of women. Or to then try to backtrack, claiming that it's gansters in hoodies that one has been after all along, and the women in traditional headdress are just being caught up in an issue of public standards which is not targetted at them.

"Whadda we want? To stick it to Muslims. When do we want it? Now. How we gonna do it? Tear the clothes off their women."

Very sophisticated, as the Sophists would say. And Socrates would be so proud of you adopting his name.

.

Dear ALGOREisRICH,

.

I wrote "thread" not "web". Four fibres intimately woven into one, very thick thread. The fibres are: national law, Shariah, traditional culture,religion.

The Islamic flock is incapable of distinguishing the individual fibres that compose the thread. They see no difference. Possibly because there is no difference, or so little.

As previously stated, imposing a burqa ban is like chopping the thread with an axe.

It can hardly be called laser precision and we might chop our foot off at the same time.

A finer analysis of the problem would seem more appropriate.

Muslim is the generic term for six different obediences: Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Salafi, Ismaili and Druze. Each has its own beliefs,cultures and practices.

Compared to the 38,000 different Christian denominations in the world, it should not be difficult to identify the differences and narrow our focus to the few that pose problem.

The Arabic Peninsular, where both Islam and Muslim fundamentalism were born, is still very much a mixture of sedentary populations and nomadic tribes. We need to understand the historical, cultural and political factors that determine the mentalities of these people.

Knowledge and understanding are powerful tools. If our Australian law, culture and religion are so much better than those of the Muslim world, we should not have too much difficulty devising a strategy to convince our Muslim friends that they are, effectively, so much better, beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hopefully, we could all learn something from the effort and work out a satisfactory modus operandi that allows us all to live together intelligently.

.

Banjo Paterson,

Do all the "finer analysis of the problem" you like. Don't forget to figure out just whose "problem" it is, theirs or yours.

Any findings of this "analysis" might be of interest to social services, health workers, and Muslim-Christian friendship organisations.

Just don't imagine that creating custom-made criminal offences is a suitable solution to every social issue that you happen to think would improve Australian society.

Believe it or not, society does have other less coercive ways of empowering citizens to make their own personal choices.

federalist, "Believe it or not, society does have other less coercive ways of empowering citizens to make their own personal choices."

Which is why the push is on from Islamic fundamentalists, men and women, to legitimise and shore up the fashion and the cultural practises linked with it by obtaining lasting concessions for wearers of the burqa and niqab.

Harmful cultural traditions that have been imported do not wilt of their own accord, in fact there is evidence that the opposite can easily happen, that such traditions become even more rigid in the adopted country. Two examples are kidnap marriage and honour killing, which are imports and have existed in Australia for many years.

It is irresponsible of authorities if known harmful cultural practices are not discouraged from the start, although it would be rarely be necessary to invoke new laws for that purpose.

For health and body image reasons alone these fashions should be discouraged from ever being passed on to young women.

One of the sad things about the niqab and burqa is that you cannot ever use the useful come-on line"Excuse me.Where have i seen you before?"

socratease

All of you with your "first it's burqas, next it's an Islamist state" paranoia, why don't you try reading back your own posts, substituting "Jews" for "Muslims". See if it reminds you of anything.

federalist,

The liberals you insult with your personal attack in lieu of facts are in good company with Professor Richard Dawkins.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301750/Fury-Richard-Dawkinss-burka-jibe-atheist-tells-revulsion-Muslim-dress.html#ixzz0y8aLw9dS

You may consider Richard Dawkins "good company". An evangelistic, fundamentalist bigot who's made it his life's work to ram his own religion - atheism - down other people's throats, whether they are interested in hearing it or not. The ultimate bore. "There is no reality but my reality." Great company. You're welcome to him.

As for "personal attack in lieu of facts" ... This discussion is not about facts; nor is it about whether burqas are good or bad; nor is it about whether health and social workers need to be more aware of these issues.

This thread is about whether the law is an appropriate instrument to enforce your views on whether others may or may not cover their faces. And in this, it's not facts you come up against, but principle.

My point stands: substitute "Jews" for "Muslims" and see if that helps jog anyone's memory.

As for calling my words a "personal attack," that's the weakest possible defence. Many in this thread have delivered vicious verbal attacks against Muslims in general - sounds personal to me.

I, on the other hand, have made my comment based only on the actual words I see written here, with no knowledge of your backgrounds or identities. And it's a fair comment which remains to be answered: what is the difference between the anti-Muslim sentiment I hear in the mass media these days, and the centuries of anti-Jewish pogroms which seem so barbaric in hindsight?

OK ban me for abuse if it is abuse but reading some of these posts makes mine read like Ba Ba Black Sheep.
And to add to my crime I was deleted for the use of capital letters.
really
Now delete this for the over use of exclamation marks.
Fair suck of the lolly bottle...or is this to be deleted for sexual content...afraid to use question mark

watch it, you guys... youre next

socratease

Dear Pericles.. clearly you live a very sheltered life.

Sad..but true. If you got out a bit more and saw how things are going around the world, you might not think the comparison to the Hitler youth is so strange.
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2006/07/so-whats-with-fascist-salute.html

OH shock horror.. "Muslims doing Hitler salutes"

Or...

http://sheikyermami.com/2009/01/19/hamas-rally-in-melbourne-and-around-the-world/

There ya go Peri... or..

http://www.michaeltotten.com/2010/05/the-flight-of-the-intellectuals.php

Just keeep on a scrollin..and you will see:

Burqa and "God bless Hitler" together
Mufti of Jerusalem with Adolph negotiating an SS regiment made up of Arabs/Bosnians

and you have the naivity to dish up "That's our Boaz" ?

Remember...those neuron paths Pericles... we need to do some re-configuring mate.

@BANJO P... I think I've analysed the whole thing to death mate :)
I'm aware of those sects, long story short, only the Ahmadiyya's have renounced violent Jihad to my knowledge.

Boaz, you spend far too much time scouring the web for images that titillate your paranoid nerve-endings.

>>OH shock horror.. "Muslims doing Hitler salutes"<<

If you were to line up all the images available on the internet of idiots "doing Hitler salutes", I wonder what percentage would be Muslim, and what percentage Christian?

Ah, here's one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264753/Funeral-Eugene-Terreblanche-takes-place-amid-tight-security.html

Terreblanche was, as the phrase goes, a "born again Christian". Much like your friend Peter Hitchens, I suspect.

>>...and you have the naivity to dish up "That's our Boaz" ?<<

Remember the context of that observation?

>>The Burqa, to me..is the moral equivalent... of some bloke walking down the main drag in a Hitler Youth uniform, complete with swastika's and jackboots<<

Now, would that "moral equivalent" just happen to be a white Christian person in uniform, Boaz? Like Joseph Ratzinger, perhaps?

http://arkcode.com/whats_new_24.html

Would it therefore not be entirely reasonable, in your convoluted and bizarre logic framework, to equate the swastika and jackboots with Christianity?

We are talking about items of clothing here, after all.

Very childish, ALGOREISRICH.

Do you think anti-Jewish pogroms were invented in the 20th century? To be sure, one particular fascist movement took pogroms to a whole new level, but that was an outgrowth of a thousand years of outlawing Jews in Europe. By "outlawing" I mean excluding from the protection of the law that others benefit from.

Do you think if a xenophobic campaign is aimed at some group other than Jews, it's not in the same class and somehow more acceptable?

Federalist...interesting question, let's take it a bit further.

If a Xenophobic campaign to stir up ill will and expose the true nature of the ideology was waged against people who were members of the national socialist party.... (let's call this 'political' xenophobia)

in the light of all we now know about the effect of that 'ideology'

how would 'you' answer that question ? :)

I rather enjoy this turn of events in this debate, because it reaches into the absolute kernel of importance.

I eagerly await your response.

Dear Pericles.. as usual, you need some special attention and guidance.

Not a bad try as tries go, -the Terreblanche story and images.

Calling him "Born Again" could have been supplemented with:

//One of only three whites in the Rooigrond prison near Mafikeng, during his time in prison he became a born-again Christian and later claimed to have moderated many of his more racist views//

What kind of moderation and what kind of faith, are between him and his Lord. Being "Born Again" does not make a person sinless, but it does change their outlook. You know..'Fruit of the Spirit' Galatians 5

As always, the issue for me is not anecdotes alone, but anecdotes which can be connected directly to theological foundation. For the "Muslims and Nazi's" the connection is clear. For the 'Christians' it is a smelly dead fish, ie.. not fit for intellectual consumption.
You know.."Hitler hated Jews...wrote such in Mein Kampf...then killed a few million of them" all the dots are connected.

Now.. that aside, you still are not with the program... you know...the one called 'rationality, reason and balance'.

'Rationality': (foundation valid?)
Islam (The Muslims) hate the Jews as a matter of 'fundamental ideology' "The last hour will not come unless the Muslims kill the Jews" etc.. I don't need to give chapter and verse do I ?

'Reason': (what follows from a presupposition)
a)Muhammad said that. b)Muslims follow Muhammad case closed.
You could mention any number of convenient exceptions of an anecdotal nature, but they don't contribute to the basic premise.

To know which attitude a Muslim holds, ie..."orthodox" or "unorthodox" you need to examine theology.

005.082
YUSUFALI: Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians":

That leaves just....

'Balance': in which case we would need to examine various passages, their contexts and historical background..something you are loathe to do... so I won't try.

Once again, your highly selective mind chooses to hear precisely what it wants to hear, Boaz.

And nothing else.

>>As always, the issue for me is not anecdotes alone, but anecdotes which can be connected directly to theological foundation.<<

And, as always for you, you choose to ignore completely the point I was illustrating for you.

It had nothing to do with "anecdotes", Boaz.

It also has nothing to do with Terreblanche. Whether he was born-again, mostly born-again, somewhat born-again, slightly born-again or totally unrepentant.

I was pointing out to you that when you trawl the internet for examples of people using the Nazi salute, you will find far more instances of it being deployed by white Christians, than by Muslims.

Of any shade.

Do you remember now?

>>OH shock horror.. "Muslims doing Hitler salutes"<<

Which provided us with examples to support your contention that...

>>The Burqa, to me..is the moral equivalent... of some bloke walking down the main drag in a Hitler Youth uniform, complete with swastika's and jackboots<<

You now have seen pictures of emotional crowds of white Christians "doing Hitler salutes", and a picture of Herr Ratzinger (also, I believe, a Christian. Possibly even of the "born-again" variety) in "Hitler Youth uniform".

Altogether, a fairly comprehensive antidote to your cheap shot about the "moral equivalence" of the burqa.

It might be prudent for you to drop this particular line of "reasoning", Boaz, and retire quietly to contemplate how you might profitably mend your ways.

Failing that, learn how to stop leading with your chin.