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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Women should be free to wear the burqa > Comments

Women should be free to wear the burqa : Comments

By Pip Hinman, published 29/11/2010

Wearing the burqa raises complicated questions of human rights.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 44
  7. 45
  8. 46
  9. All
This issue is being presented by the author as a libertarian issue, and as self professed libertarian, I find myself torn on the issue.

As a libertarian, I agree that as long as no harm is inflicted on others anyone should be allowed to wear what they want whether it is the Burqa, a silly hat, or even nothing.

However, society is never that simple, and the burqa is not like wearing a silly hat, and has cultural and other freedom issues associated with it.

Despite Pip's protestations, there is significant evidence that many of those wearing the burqa are doing so not because of their religious ideals, but more because of pressure from their husbands and community.

The second issue that the burqa not only provides modesty, but hides identity, and obscures vision is also problematic especially where safety and security are concerned when driving or banking is undertaken.

In conclusion, there are strong arguments either way, and neither banning or allowing the burqa is without merit.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 29 November 2010 10:45:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ban it...no woman wears this by choice, there is always pressure at home from hubby. Its vile; ban it
Posted by peter piper, Monday, 29 November 2010 11:45:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author is making an unfounded assumption that opponents of the burqua are racists, and claims specifically, that they are white supremists. Apparently this glib assumption is deemed to strengthen her arguments against any opposition to wearing of the burqua.

I wonder what the author's position is on the supremist attitudes of Arab nations and other followers of Islam as directed towards Western society and culture, and which appears to be creating more of an issue globally in contrast to the citizens of our largely educated, tolerant and egalitarian "modern" culture.

Another unfounded assumption is that to ban the burqua is to criminalise the wearer. There would be many ways of limiting, discouraging and hopefully preventing its use other than imposing criminal penalties. A penalty more in the order of traffic infringements would be appropriate - given similar risks to the public are involved due to driving with impaired vision and anonymity.

The wearing of the burqua is a repressive and ridiculous practice and I support negative sanctions to discourage its use. There appear to be many reasons for wearing it in Australia besides it's wearing being culturally imposed.

For some wearers, including recent Australian converts, wearing the burqua appears to be a fashion statement and or a means to assert their difference or "individuality" (haha) which in some instances reflects a criminal or malicious intent such as the woman who recently received a well earned 16 months sentence for making a false report to Police and then claiming as a defense, absence of proof of identity. When people behave like criminals they ought to be treated as such.
Posted by JanF, Monday, 29 November 2010 12:29:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am insulted by the burqa because, to illustrate, the husband of the
woman in Italy said "I cannot allow other men to see my wife".
That is the purpose of the burqa.
It is a fear that she will be raped by other men if they see her.

That is what is offensive about the burqa !
It is an insult !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 29 November 2010 1:16:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Pip Hinman. It must come down to a woman's choice. It's all well and good to just say 'Ban It' and leave it to the women who choose to wear it to deal with possible consequences such as limited ability to go out in public.
I believe the call for a ban does have a considerable element of racial prejudice driving it.

I receive emails from time to time from members of my network of friends and family that behind the thin veil of national aussie pride are downright hypocritical and overtly anti Islam. I have only this morning sent off a firm rebuke in reply to one such email that echoed the Fred Nile philosophy.

I reminded them that in their celebration of Christianity they are indeed observing codes of dress that were fashionable in Christ's time.

The recent case of a woman being jailed for falsifying evidence when she was called on to verify her identity was not about her wearing a Burka but her own unreasonable response to a police officer who required her to observe the law.
Posted by maracas1, Monday, 29 November 2010 1:26:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These Burkas leave a large opening for persons not acting inside the law to use. How can a person wearing these things ever drive a car. I recon the police would be very weary of someone inside these suites.
You would think they would be happy to get rid of such an oppressive garb. I just hope immigration from these hard line islamist countries is curtailed.
Posted by 579, Monday, 29 November 2010 2:16:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not racist, sexist, anti-religious freedom or any other possible 'IST' that any zealous politically correct social engineer could invent in a month of brain-storming workshops if the LAW simply prescribes that covering ones face so as to conceal identity in public is illegal. Exceptions being those people with a medical/health issue (Drs certificate required as for current seatbelt exemption, disabled parking permit etc) or those whose legitimate employment may require masks or helmuts, eg Actors engaged in promo work.

This covers the entire Australian population and is completely FAIR.

If there are people out there of certain CULTURAL persuasions who believe that it is absolutely essential for the family/tribal honour that no-one sees the face of their womenfolk who have reached puberty bar husbands and immediate family - then those people should be invited to return to their country of origin. I am absolutely CERTAIN that should a whip around be called to assist in their repatriation, there would be no shortage of donations.

As far as new immigrants are concerned, there should be a list of unacceptable cultural practices not tolerated in Australia made very clear to the applicants with the understanding that flouting these conditions will mean a one way ticket back to wherever they came from.

Problem solved!
Posted by divine_msn, Monday, 29 November 2010 2:23:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to the comment by Maracas1, I question whether opposition to wearing of the burqua warrants the blanket description of "anti-Islam". Many followers of Islam in Australia do not wear a cloth of any kind on their head or face.

Being opposed to Islamic extremists who support and or impose wearing of the burqua, on the other hand, appears an entirely justifiable position to me - given the other inhumane, oppressive and repressive practices of a minority of Islamic extremists, and which have no place in a modern, educated (needs to be stressed) and humane society.

On the other hand the highly public behaviour of a minority of Isalmic extremists insisting on wearing the burqua as if a human right does little to encourage tolerance of Islam in this country, rather the extremists fan prejudice against the whole religion of Islam; which I feel is a separate issue that points to this ridiculous practice as socially divisive. It may well be the intent of some wearers and perpetrators (those who force or intimidate women into wearing it) as part of the extremists' war or "Islamic jihad" against the Western culture whhich they purport to despise.

At some point we ordinary Australians need to take a stand on behalf of our own values. The practice of tolerance has serious limitations when our civilsed way of life and national security are placed under threat by the repressive and ignorant practices of a minority of Islamic extremists which in no way show respect for human rights.
Posted by JanF, Monday, 29 November 2010 2:33:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I loathe the burqa and all that it stands for,
but like Shadow Minister I'm ambivalent as to whether
my personal antipathy (and that of others) outweighs
the freedom of people to wear whatever they like.
Women who choose to wear the burqa aren't actually
causing harm to anyone else by wearing it.

Surely there are ways of discouraging the wearing of
the burqa short of banning it?
Posted by talisman, Monday, 29 November 2010 2:43:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's more to feminism or advocating for women's rights than just the wearing of a burqa. Nobody complained when nuns wore habits from neck to knee, when only their faces and hands were visible. Men with long hair, a full beard and sun glasses are another group, but nobody advocates outlawing these choices. Women in Afghanistan for example who are forced to wear the burqa by fundamentalists and/or war lords etc are treated in a most cruel and horrific manner-our participation in their country is only adding to their horror. Where were the outbursts of outrage,when Pres Karzai allowed legislation through the Afghan Parliament that allowed men to rape their wives! We didn't take action over that! No word either from Fred Nile or Conservative Senators. If we're really fair dinkum about human rights for women, let's go further than facial covering!
I support women making their own choices!
Posted by Liz45, Monday, 29 November 2010 2:47:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we should ban the tie. What stupid person dreamt up such a useless piece of clothing. And to think some women now want to copy men in wearing this piece of cloth.
Posted by runner, Monday, 29 November 2010 3:48:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45 has taken the moral high ground by referring to extreme examples from other countries.

Runner has also resorted to extremes, and has sought to ridicule those who support banning the burqua as if it were an entirely arbitrary form of attire, like wearing a tie.

Their arguments lack logic and as a human rights cause, jumping on this band wagon has limitations in that, as migrants from Islamic countries become enculturated and their children take advantage of the education system, the archaic practice is unlikely to persist.
Posted by JanF, Monday, 29 November 2010 4:01:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I lived as an expatriate in a Muslim country for seven years. I know that some Muslim men desire the burqua for their women and have successfully ‘indoctrinated’ women into believing that it is the duty of good Muslim females to cover up. These Muslim men will never acknowledge this but it essentially stems from a large dose of insecurity on their part.. These men don’t want any other men looking at their wives, etc. But it is alright for them to play the field and acquire 4 wives.

Sometimes it is through regulations that such discriminatory practices can be abandoned, especially if they are a hindrance to women’s progress and equality status. The burqua is a symbol of oppression, a simple of subservience, a symbol of ignorance and certainly a symbol of male supremacy. The burquaed women will never agree with the above statement as the level of ‘burqua-indoctrination’ is deeply entrenched. This is a tragedy!!

Cheers to France. They have the guts to pass regulations in the best interest of the nation and the long-term interest of the burquaed community as French citizens. A burquaed community in Australia means creating an underclass community, a divided community. It will come back to bite us all. Better to discard the burqua and see the world for what it is; evil is not out there, but within us. Seek not to hide behind the burqua for it doesn’t free the Satan within one!! Down with the burqua!!
Posted by Jolly, Monday, 29 November 2010 4:47:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I generally agree with Pip Hinman, she does rather overstate her case. It is simply not racist to want to see women's faces and to oppose any form of compulsory face covering. Others have argued this well enough, though the portrayal, by one correspondent, of the minority who wear the veil, as extremist Muslims, is extremely unhelpful and plainly wrong.

If we were really serious we would certainly not add to the woes of any woman who is made to wear a veil, and we would legislate instead to fine all men whose wives wear it, unless they also wear it themselves.

In Australia we are all equal before the law. The idea that a man's face might not be an occasion of immodesty or sexual stimulation is false - and panders to the ridiculous idea that women, and some men, are not sexually attracted to men's faces.

Women who claim to wear veils for modesty are in effect proclaiming that the women in my life are somehow less modest because they don’t cover their heads. Well they clearly don’t know my mum . . . and all the others, and this kind of claim to the modesty high ground is offensive and about as unhinged as most of the moral precepts that came from the bronze age.

But even more importantly our collective liberty is hardly advanced by the suppression of minorities. There simply is no case that this would protect anyone. I agree that it is, instead, a clear case of scapegoating a vulnerable group to focus our discomfort with a world that is less and less in our control. Sad really . . . It never was in our control!

Pokies, opportunistic bank fees, a PBS listing for Viagra, home evictions, tendering for the right to mine our minerals . . . I have a very long list that deserves the attention of our legislatures before veils even rate a mention!
Posted by russellpollard.com, Monday, 29 November 2010 5:20:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting, there was an article the other day about a woman who was arrested for wearing a burqa whilst driving. It was said, that her vision was too restricted for safety.

This occurred in a country under sharia law. The article went on to say, that while women in that country are not banned from driving, they are banned from getting a driving license.
Posted by Jon R, Monday, 29 November 2010 5:31:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JanF,

Don't jump to conclusions to quickly. In certain circumstances I think the burqua should be banned. However wearing the burqua is a lot less harmful than the pressure put on young girls to flaunt what they have or have not got. Many more suicides occur due to this sort of promotion by the porn and advertising industry in the West than deaths by Islamic woman with burqua's hiding bombs.
Posted by runner, Monday, 29 November 2010 5:45:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pip's article reflects a real concern for the welfare of women and, as she says,it is so obvious that this issue is being driven by people with an agenda other than women's welfare.
Posted by grateful, Monday, 29 November 2010 5:57:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must also admit that I am torn on this issue. Women should have the right to chose what they want to wear ( within reason of course), and I don't have a problem with the Indian Sari or any other ethnic dress simply because they don't cover the face. Why can't these garments be adapted so that the face at least could be seen? Afterall the claim is that they don't want their women to tempt other men. But if the entire body is covered - what's the problem? Covering the entire face and body does present all sorts of problems in our "free society."
If we were to visit their countries they would expect us to comply with their rules, what's the problem with our insisting on the same courtesy? As I said - this is all a bit of a conundrum to me.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 29 November 2010 6:17:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with runner, both posts, which is refreshing! There are other dress codes and body image expectations virtually enforced on young women in Western culture which are much more damaging than the burqua.

I do question those assertions that ALL women in a burqua are being forced to do so. As is the case with Christianity, pious adherents to the faith will put the religious dogma ahead of any external moral considerations. An example is women banned from being priests in the catholic church. It is their belief system, we should respect that, so long as they are not trying to ram their religion down our throats or try to impose their dogma on our legal system and own personal freedoms.

The Muslims have it wrong anyway. I actually find their women more appealing when they are covered like that. The mystery...

And maybe not all ties should be banned, but it should be illegal to force employees to wear them, and all ties with a cartoon character or other gimmick should be burned in the town square, with all high heels too.

Actually, I question whether any woman would wear high heels if it wasn't expected by mainstream Western society. BAN THEM! They are uncomfortable and are purely for the benefit of some men's sexual gratification.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Monday, 29 November 2010 6:29:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The niqab and the burqa are entirely different modes of dress.

The burqa does not offend me as long as women use the face covering reasonably, no problem. In fact I think it is rather attractive.

But I have a real problem with the niqab apart from being confronting.

The niqab is unhealthy for the woman. It is proven that lack of sunlight can kill a human being eventually. They are not doing themselves any favours.
Posted by RaeBee, Monday, 29 November 2010 7:26:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banning the burqa would stop letterbox ladies
<<from participating in society as women, as workers, as unionists, as feminists, as mothers>>?

Women:
How do you know the person in the tent is a woman?
You don't.
How does the woman in a remote public toilet know whether the only other occupant is a woman if she is disguised as a member of the Ku Klux Klan?

Workers:
Who should have to work with someone whose face they can't see, whose expression they can't read?
No one.

Unionists:
Who would put this one here?
A social justice activist.

Feminists:
For some reason one keeps forgetting that Mohammed was the first feminist, with his liberation of Arab women.

Mothers:
Pillar box ladies wear their burqas when communicating with their kids?
Posted by Proxy, Monday, 29 November 2010 8:22:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Drivers:
People should be able to read the actions of drivers, who represent a potential threat. How can you tell if the person in the shroud has seen your bicycle?
How can the policeman identify the driver? Or must they call for female back-up?
Should people in burqas be allowed to pay for their petrol at the service station. Don't they represent even more of a security threat than helmets, which are already prohibited?

Bank customers:
Doesn't 7th century Arabian desert garb exclude women from participating fully in society as bank customers? If it doesn't, it should for the same reasons that motorcycle helmets are banned but even moreso. Or should burqa weares get a free pass because we hope and assume that they are harmless Muslimahs, besides it would be discriminatory to question their right to glide around in a tent in a bank whereas everybody else must remain identifiable.

Witnesses/defendents/plaintiffs/judges/lawyers/jury members:
Must the courts be cleared everytime a letterbox lady takes the stand?
(Apparently yes, in Perth where "social justice activists" are being promoted to the bench)
Has a defendant the right to see the faces of the jurors who sit in judgement over them?
What is to stop a Muslimah judge from wearing a burqa?

Teachers:
Do children have the right to see the face of their teacher?

etc, etc, etc

Burqas in no way belong in 21st century Australia.

Burqas belong in 7th century Arabia, with their advocates.
Posted by Proxy, Monday, 29 November 2010 8:22:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Burka Blue: No Burka,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK7CVNyBALo&feature=related
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 29 November 2010 8:27:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Next they will demand the removal of Photographs from identity cards , Pasports etc
Posted by Garum Masala, Monday, 29 November 2010 9:05:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This discussion's obviously gone a bit silly,
but I do like that 'No Burka' vid.
You rock, Cornflower!
Posted by talisman, Monday, 29 November 2010 9:07:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And now for a little light relief:

The Fifth Annual Fall Fundamentalist Fashion Show -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIpdC0o3mdM
Posted by Proxy, Monday, 29 November 2010 9:20:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The curious thing about burqa is that it was uncommon outside Saudi Arabia 20 years ago. Look at footage of street scenes in Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, even Afghanistan form the 80s and you'll see few head coverings, let alone burqas. It seems odd to me that coverings of various types, from hijab through to mobile marquee tents, are becoming more common, the more Muslims end up in the West as immigrants. Is this because of a "revival of tradional values", or a means to separate Muslims from the sea of kaffirs? Or maybe just to annoy us, to feed permanent Muslim "victimhood"?

I personally think burqas should be banned. They are not an Islamic dress requirement (dress is merely meant to be "modest", not all-encompassing), and it most certainly should be banned whilst driving (for obvious safety reasons) and where security is an issue. Men who force their women to wear burqas should be fined, not the wearers.

Should women be free to wear the burqa? Yes, in the Islamic state of their choice.
Posted by viking13, Monday, 29 November 2010 9:34:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JanF - All that I said is true. The fact is, that a Muslim woman stated recently, that it's the daughters of Muslim women who are now choosing to wear the burqa in Australia - their mothers didn't. The view was, that these younger women are wearing this garment as a protest at the racial hatred that's been in this country since 9/11. If that's the reason, I say why not? I find it incredible that some people think that if our society/law prohibits this garment, women's human rights will be restored. What rubbish. There's a long way to go in this country before women are treated as equals, and it has nothing to do with whether our faces are covered or uncovered.
A woman is murdered every 10 days in this country by a partner/husband, and one in 3 women are subjected to some form of abuse in their lifetime. We have more important areas of discrimination and abuse to clear up before we get het up over a piece of cloth that covers a woman's face - it's more important to prevent the bruises some women have to put up with on a daily basis.
It is shameful, that those who get het up over this, choose to turn their faces away on more important issues that cause real harm to women! There is an ingrained culture of violence towards women in Australia. I question the motives of people, particularly men, who get in a sweat over this issue. And what about those who rip the hijab from women's heads - how about that form of abuse?
What about the 'dresses' priests and bishops wear? They could hide anything under them, but nobody complains about them being a security hazard do they?
Posted by Liz45, Monday, 29 November 2010 11:06:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regardless of whether Pip's backing the right horse, this is the most unconvincing and shallow argument I've read on OLO pages for a while. She rarely goes beyond name calling, demonising, and putting words in her opponents' mouths.

I assume she wasn't the principle speaker, and hope no vote was carried on the basis of this speach alone. 

For my part, we already have all sorts of laws enforcing all sorts of dress codes and dress standards for varieties of reasons, some silly, some not so. Why are we so sensitive about enforcing this standard, one which is pretty sensible and understandable.

I recently heard of a man refused custom in a convenience store because he wasn't wearing shoes. 

In September this year, I was refused entry to the MCC to watch a football match (half naked men chasing a pig skin in the mud) because I had dressed to protect myself against the rain. I was wearing leather shoes, jeans, a ski jumper, and rain coat, but unfortunately no shirt bearing a collar.    
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 29 November 2010 11:43:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The burqa is one of the most instantly recognised symbols of oppression in the world today.

It is a mistake to believe that fundamentalism is restricted to men.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 29 November 2010 11:52:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I really wanted to leave this one a-lone.

And I will..............but............well.. who am I to say what a woman can wear since Iam not one.

This is a classic females world............they will in time see how important they are to the all of.....what is life.

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Monday, 29 November 2010 11:53:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pip's main argument against the burqa ban seemed to be that Fred Nile wants it, therefore it must be bad. 

If Fred was a bit more clever, and he wanted to rid the streets of burqas, then he should have upheld them as a time honoured religious expression and right for men in the line of Abraham to oversee their wives dress standards, and then watched these women fall over each other to ensure that muslim women were liberated from such an oppressive thing.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 6:29:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Burqa is a symbol to women's rights as the swastika is to Judaism.

This is not a simple argument about wearing funny clothes.

Following the same logic, one should not be discouraged from:
1 Wearing a swastika,
2 Wearing the Klu Klux Klan white hooded garb,
3 Walking naked though a public area.

This is not the simplistic libertarian argument that Pip is trying to sell.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 8:29:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While the wearing of the burqa is a symbol that is insulting to men and to women (in different ways), much of the backlash against the burqa comes from a real concern about women being forced - it is not an issue of racism or anti-Islam.

The author makes simplistic accusations rather than delving more deeply into the nature of concerns about the burqa. Some of the concerns come from the Muslim community. Some Muslim Imams have claimed the burqa is not obligatory under Islam.

The burqa is being worn more in Australia since the discussions about banning it, if you deny the right to something as simple as an item of clothing, you merely stir that very human element of distrust and invite a larger number of wearers in protest.

Muslim scholars debate the legitimacy of wearing the burqa as a symbol of respect to Allah (God). Wearing of the burqa is rare and the highest rates are in those countries where oppressive religious regimes are in power and where women have reduced status and little in the way of rights to participate in government or in setting regulation.

It is very much a cultural tradition dressed up to be a religious requirement - as acknowledged by many Muslim scholars.

As much as I dislike the burqa, unless there is a security consideration, the burqa should be able to be worn by those who are silly enough to believe it is an obligatory requirement or who do it to make a political point. I reckon it is better to ignore and it will eventually die out with education and assimiliation.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 8:49:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pip Hinman is deluded! I have very sound reasons for saying that.

//Pip was a founding member of Sydney Stop the War Coalition in 2003, and is involved in a variety of community campaigns. She has stood for the Socialist Alliance in the inner west and works with Green Left Weekly.//

Here we have a socialist supporting the Muslim cause.

This is EXACTLY the situation in Iran pre revolution. The Socialists though, had the idea that once they could sufficiently orchestrate a revolution....they could sideline the 'fundy Muslims' and bring socialist enlightenement to the New Iran.

Unnnnnfortunately for them, the Muslims KNEW about this, and simply used the socialists to assist them in their cause UNTIL they had the power... and...then...

They SLAUGHTERED at least 10,000 Socialists who they quickly caught up with. Game over for Pip's mates in Iran.

Now..the surreal thing about this (and this is the connection to the deluded remark) ..I found that information on the SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE web site! So....they KNOW the reality, but.. while knowing it..they continue to follow their own script..help the "Muslim cause" thinking all the while they can escape what happened to their comrades in Iran.

To me..that is being deluded.

Perhaps they've learnt? "THIS" time (they think) they can take power and actually succeed in sidelining the Muslims they helped.

Who knows?

But clearly Pip knows nothing about Islam...thats a cert.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 9:06:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The writer of this article follows the line (not surprising given her status as a Socialist) of describing European anti-immigration parties as "right/far right". What is it about wanting one's country to remain "British" or "Belgian", not to mention, save billions or dollars of Euros or whatever in subsidies to immigrants, that makes such people "Rightists"? It seems to me, only the fact that lefties support unfettered immigration no matter what the social or economic consequences, and who therefore oppose "nationalist" parties, makes such parties fall "to the right". Journalists use the same disingenuous "far right" tag no matter how progressive anti-immigrations parties' non-immigration policy platforms might be.
Posted by viking13, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 9:55:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
viking13 - The only real Australians are the indigenous people. One in 4 Australians were born overseas - we're all boat or plane people? HOw did you come here,and why should your nationality take precedence. I find it quite annoying to listen to people criticising our intake of asylum seekers, and it's obvious that english is their second language. My family is made up of people from 16 different countries, which has given us a wide experience of peoples and languages and cultures. There were at least 23 nationalities on the first fleet. So what is our 'Australian-ess'?
Pip is not condoning the fundamentalists or war lords in the Middle eastern countries that are committing atrocities against women, nor is she condoning men in this country who do the same - many of them are not from the ME and have english as their first language. It's the right to wear what you wish that she supports I believe, as I do!
Posted by Liz45, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 2:21:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45 writes

'The only real Australians are the indigenous people. ' Really! Then what are you doing here? Why don't you go home wherever that might be.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 3:21:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Liz,
A catastropic natural disaster in Papua has killed hundreds and displaced tens of thousands of people, many of whom live 'traditional' lifestyles.

Australia, being a good neighbour and recognising GENUINE need offers to take five thousand survivors.

When the new arrivals reach Australia they spend time being processed and learning about their new surrounds. They observe the dress and customs of their new environment and are provided with western clothing. However many of these people are uncomfortable with the change and very resistant to any cultural restraints.

So Liz - do you defend to the death the RIGHT of these people to go about in public dressed in little more than a penis sheath or grass skirt and various bodily ornaments consisting mainly of bits of deceased bird and plant material? What about the traditional weapons the men carry? It's their culture. Do we have the right to insist they adapt to Australian mores?

I think we know the answer.

So how different is it that the average Australian wants to see a ban on clothing that completely obliterates the identity of the wearer? I've said it several times before in this forum: the burqa is NOT a religious garment. It 'protects' the wearer from public view and the gaze of every person outside the wearers immediate family. The male members of such cultures believe that to show her face outside of these constraints brings DISHONOUR to the family/tribe. Female children are taught that they are and always will be under the rule of MAN - first father, then husband and in absence of either another male relative and must obey his commands. That, dear reader is the CULTURE, not religion.

How big a compromise if the 'walking tents' were to adjust their garb to reveal just their faces? That's all most of us want - an identifiable PERSON. It's our country, our culture and we have a right to reject what isn't acceptable here.
Posted by divine_msn, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 3:56:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The only real Australians are the indigenous people."

Really, and this has what to do with burqas, exactly? Did your indigenous friends form a nation, or were they a disparate group of tribes (who came here by boat, I might add)? If you think "precedence" is important, you might tell the Turks to leave Turkey- they from come a long way east of the modern country.

"One in 4 Australians were born overseas"

Speaks volumes for an overheated immigrant intake, doesn't it? especially with those who show utter contempt for Australia and its values.

"we're all boat or plane people? HOw did you come here,and why should your nationality take precedence".

I came here out of my mother's birth canal. You? Flying saucer?

"I find it quite annoying to listen to people criticising our intake of asylum seekers, and it's obvious that english is their second language."

I find it a lot more than "annoying" to have "refugees" from immiscible cultures come here and demand that our culture change to suit them, while sponging off taxpayers like myself for years.

"My family..." Bully for you. As my name suggests, I'm of Scandinavian descent (as are most English people). My wife is Asian, from a fascinating culture, doesn't mean I want Australia to become like them.

" So what is our 'Australian-ess'?" Dunno, you tell us, would you prefer we all went Somali?
Posted by viking13, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 7:05:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Daniel Pipes provides a long list of incidents in which burqas were used to aid criminals and terrorists:

"Niqabs and Burqas as Security Threats"
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/niqabs-and-burqas-as-security-threats

Niqabs and burqas are a self-evident security threat.

Niqabs and burqas are a political statement when worn in Western countries.

Nevertheless, women who wear niqabs or burqas are entitled to exercise their freedom of choice.

That choice should be, remove the bedouin bedsheet or go back to the Middle East.
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 7:16:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now you're just being silly.The reality is, that aboriginal people were occupying this country for at least 40,000 up to 200,000 years in some areas. My ancestors were of Irish descent; I'm a third generation Australian, but I don't OWN this country - I live here. I reject the anglo-saxon so called values of the catholic church that physically and/or sexually abused kids at school, in their homes and in other places where they should've been safe. I don't recall anytime in my life, when there's been the same sort of hysteria over the 'funny clothes' the nuns and priests wore/wear. I say this to emphasize the zenophobic and irrational nonsense over the people from the middle east and the burqa? Why didn't people rise up over kids who as adults are shadows of humanity, non-trusting and traumatised? I put it to you who carry on about my former post to reflect on this. Even now as we speak the catholic church is still acting in a manner of at best denial, and at worst, castigating the abused and destroying their lives, while they insist on protecting the perpetrators. How has wearing the burqa in Australia brought about anything resembling these horrors?
I do not find a woman wearing a burqa confronting. I'd support her if she was forced to wear it; I'd support her if it was her personal choice. That's what living in a democracy is supposed to be about. If people really want a 'hobby horse' to get angry about, do some research about the ango-saxon repugnant human beings who are still being protected!
Posted by Liz45, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 8:35:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<I reject the anglo-saxon so called values of the catholic church that physically and/or sexually abused kids at school, in their homes and in other places where they should've been safe.>>

These weren't the values of "anglo-saxons" or the catholic church.
81% percent of the victims were boys.
This makes it, by definition, homosexual child abuse.

<<Even now as we speak the catholic church is still acting in a manner of at best denial, and at worst, castigating the abused and destroying their lives, while they insist on protecting the perpetrators.>>

The catholic church is working hard to exclude homosexual priests from its ranks.
Given their evident relentlessness, this will be no easy task.
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 8:46:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Proxy-You have the stats to back that up?My sister was abused by a priest;there were lots of girls who were victims-read last weekend's SMH-buy,'Hell on the way to Heaven' about 2 little girls/sisters who were abused;then go to The 7.30Report of several months ago re twin sisters who are now women, but were also little girls. If you have the stats, then post them, otherwise it's only conjecture? The catholic church is not trying to overcome the problem, they're just frantic about the 'bad press'? The present pope, had the responsibility for 25 yrs, to 'deal' with the perpetrators-we all know that they were moved around the country or sent overseas, and moved around that country. They're not serious about child sexual abuse-only the negative responses to it?
Some priests may have been homosexual, some(many) were not.Again, if you have the proof,provide the links, otherwise, don't make crazy speculations and don't try to defend them-they're indefensible!
Posted by Liz45, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 11:33:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,

-stats and figures-

I don’t think the aborigines have been here for anything like 40000 years. Here’s my argument from mathematics.

Let’s start with a group of 10 aboriginal people who may have immigrated across the Timor Sea. They multiply at a rate that increases their population by 0.5% per year (that’s not many).

After 400 years, expediential growth would give the group an expected population of 73
After 1000 years, would give them an expected population of 1465
After 2500 years, would give them an expected population of 2.6 million
After 4000 years, would give them an expected population of 4.6 billion
After 10000 years, would give them an expected population of over 45773 billion billion.

This is just one overly simple population model. But the point to emphasise is that people MULTIPLY very quickly. We are programmed to do so. How quickly did it take China to get from a few million to where they are now? Not very long.

40000 years and my calculator blows a fuse. 200000 years is utterly ridiculous. A few thousand years of aboriginal habitation on this continent prior to European arrival is reasonable. These other figures are not.

What has this to do with Burqas? Nothing (it wasn’t me who brought this up), but its an opportunity to reveal how otherwise intelligent people sometimes don’t stop to think.

And as for the nuns and priests wearing funny clothes? That’s true, but at least we could see their faces, which is kind of the sticking point in the question at hand.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 12:32:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan growth rates don't always work like that especially in a relatively low technology state. If you get more people than the land can support death rates will increase. During good times (or with technology/outside support etc) groups may exceed the normal carry capacity of the land but that has a way of going terribly wrong eventually.

It's fairly safe to assume that Aboriginal populations fluctuated around the ability of the land to feed them.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 7:43:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue:"expediential "

That would be the sort of thing that creationists rely on, surely?
Back on topic, I think the burqa should be encouraged. It's the obvious solution to the problem so clearly stated in this link...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/men-retrained-to-see-breasts-as-bad-things-201011303301/
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 7:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
do some research about the ango-saxon repugnant human beings who are still being protected!

You really do hate white, Judaeo-Christian culture, don't you! You also seem to think the Catholic Church is the major Christian denomination here, sorry, but Proddies (my lot) outnumber Catholics by a decent margin. Not that I care. While child abuse is completely deplorable, and it's right that the Catholic church be held accountable for wrongs against innocents, and get rid of scum priests (there are a lot of good ones though, and abolishing celibacy would help the sexual frustration bit) it's my view that every organised religion (and many cults) put unscrupulous people in positions of power they don't deserve, and that includes Muslim madrassas.
Posted by viking13, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 8:44:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,
Thanks for picking me up on the spelling error. The word I was thinking of was expodential, not expedential.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 12:08:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S. etc

Do you have a cold?

Surely you mean exponential?
Posted by JanF, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 1:11:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that exponential is a particular case of expodential, which is the more general term. 

Getting back to enforcing dress standards, I heard on the radio this morning that an increasing (not necessarily expodentially) number of clubs and pubs are refusing entry to men wearing business suits, as they are trying to establish a more casual atmosphere. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 2:52:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, make sure you have your "England at night flag" draped across your shoulders "Hansen bogan" style on Australia Day January 26th when you celebrate the arrival of the first boat people, well what else is it your celebrating? Gee those were the days, you could chain the boat people up like slaves, men women children no difference, whip them, rape the women, didn't stop them coming though?
When did the Aboriginals arrive? When was the last Ice age, to make access here possible, just like every other great migration in history?
As for banning the Burqa, why stop there, why not follow secular France and ban all religious symbols, get the religious cults out of our public schools and make it illegal for religious extremist idiots like Nile, Bernadi, Abbott and the rest of David Clarke's illiberal party religious Reich to sit and infest our Parliaments.
Posted by HFR, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 3:48:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HFR

you might loathe every good bit of civilization and progress brought to this country by the British. I take it you would still like to be wandering around in the desert with no electricity or any advancements in thousands of years. In fact you probably would not be alive with life expectancy among the first people when the British arrived.Don't however let your hatred hide the fact that people in the millions want to come to this nation largely due to what was built by the British and other immigrants that has made this place so attractive. You obviously also believe that in some warped way otherwise you would go somewhere else. A little less loathing and a little bit of thankfulness for the sacrifices of our forefathers would go a long way especially with bleeding hearts like yourself. Then again some people will always be happy to run down those who have given them such a good life. Yes I would like to celebrate the formation of this nation but certainly not celebrate the way loathers like yourself display a hatred for all that is good.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 4:24:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue:"I believe that exponential is a particular case of expodential, which is the more general term. "

You can believe what you like, but you're still wrong. It would be "expediential" for you to simply go silent about now, I suggest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 4:25:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A couple of days ago I thought that this discussion
had become quite silly. Now it's become positively
funny. "Expodential" indeed! Just goes to show that
what some people believe has little connection to reality,
I guess.

If this keeps up I shall become quite hystericential!
Posted by talisman, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 4:33:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 12:32:25 AM

A man who has a full beard, long hair, wears sunglasses cannot be seen? Nobody relates to this. Have a look at the bloke on SBS evening program? If he had 'sunnys' on you couldn't see him?
Aborigines were in different parts of Australia for different lengths of time. My little book states, 120,000 before present, in the Lake George Basin in the Southern Tablelands of NSW. Your projection of population fails to take into account those who were murdered during the 100 yr war(estimated at a conservative 20,000), or who died from illness and/or disease. I raised the question of aboriginal people to counteract the argument of 'this is OUR Australia' sort of rubbish!
Posted by Liz45, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 4:39:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz writes

'. I raised the question of aboriginal people to counteract the argument of 'this is OUR Australia' sort of rubbish!' and then she writes a lot of mythology to justify her position. I suppose if you can't reason just make it up.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 5:03:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, just to bring the discussion a little bit back to the topic...

I think there are legitimate concerns with visibility while driving as well as identity verification (banks etc.). But banning something that is not in itself dangerous can set a bad precedent for the future.

If more and more young Muslim girls in Australia are indeed choosing the burqa or niqab as a form of political protest....shouldn't we be asking why they are protesting in the first place?

In an earlier comment, someone I think mentioned that the spread of the burqa and niqab is a sign of growing conservatism in the Islamic world. I would say that there is also growing conservatism in the Christian world, yet is this an issue that we worry about? Should we even worry about it?

Not quite the burqa- or niqab-related, but a few links from Turkey, majority Muslim country with a strong secular tradition:
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-227856-more-women-to-enter-workforce-if-headscarf-ban-lifted-survey-finds.html &
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/11/11/allahs-tailors-gaining-profile-in-turkey-with-chic-headscarves/

Turkey actually has a ban on headscarves in universities and state institutions. As is mentioned in one of the articles, this keeps religious women who do not want to remove their headscarves from education and work options, but it has no effect on religious men. From memory, Turkey is not the only Muslim-majority country that bans head coverings in certain areas.

Have Fred Nile and Cory Bernardi ever sat down with the women they target to express their concerns and figure out a way to make sure they are not ostracised from society if a ban is imposed by our ever-competent politicians? And I am seriously asking, does anyone know if they have?

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 6:03:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<81% percent of the victims were boys>>

<<You have the stats to back that up?>>

The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors
by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

Table 4.3.1 - GENDER OF ALLEGED VICTIM
Gender - Count - % of Total
Male - 8,499 - 80.9%
Female - 2,004 - 19.1%
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/incident3.pdf
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 6:23:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<I believe that exponential is a particular case of expodential, which is the more general term>>

You may be thinking of explodential which is the likelihood of a burqa-clad humanoid being a suicide bomber
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 6:32:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Or perhaps exposential, which is the rate of increase of dangerously exposed breats in the absence of the burqa.

The possibilities seem to be growing expedientially.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 7:01:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Tim Minchin said it best when he sang:

"So if you..
Cover the bodies of your women
Everybody is grinning
Because black is so slimming
Though it’s not great for swimming
But it gives you an erection
With the increased sexual tension
What with the UV protection
That is second to none"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXfmjMlPEic

Particularly the bit about giving you an erection with the increased sexual tension. All we have to do is tell the regressive Muftis, Imams, etc.; and we can sit back and watch the amusing spectacle of them trying to ban burqas.
Posted by Riz, Thursday, 2 December 2010 12:27:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's worth noting....that not many voices are being raised to ban the HIJAB..... it's only the Burqa which attracts such vehement opposition.

To me it's not about anyone's religious freedom, it's only about pragmatic issues such as recognition. I do however had grave reservations regarding where the 'freedom' to wear a burqa will lead culturally and legally in the future.

My position ? "Ban it"
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 2 December 2010 5:07:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, the only person with any hatred is you and all the other religious bigots, hatred of the truth. Calm down maybe watch some Monty Python, get a grip on reality, you've got delusion bad?
The deluded surrounding yourselves with the totally deluded, seeking to delude all those you come in contact with.
"Bigot" from the German "bei Gott", With God!
Every religious cult member on this planet should stop and realise they were not born Muslim, Catholic, Christian, Hindu, etc, or any of the estimated 2500 other mythical religions invented by mankind since the stone age.
They are all evolving mammals and all religions are nothing but invented superstitious myth. You don't have to wear this or eat that, you are not going to burn in hell, you don't have to live in fear of witches, Devils, black cats, ladders, the number 13. There is nothing to fear but fear itself, these evil old men of religion are nothing but charlatans. Any person who needs a God (Idol) threatening them with fear and a burning hell to be a decent person has a real problem. First they make you believe absurdities then they can make you commit atrocities!
Posted by HFR, Thursday, 2 December 2010 7:15:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I prefer the Urban Dictionary's contribution:

"Expodential - The spiraling cost of childrens dental needs...
'My poor daughters teeth are in such a state, the dentist informed that the cost to fix them properly will be very Expodential'"

But please stop trying to explain it to Dan, his problem with reality is far more extensive than the inability to admit that he has made a simple spelling error.

jorge has raised an interesting point.

That banning the burqa (in Turkey, Syria etc.) has the outcome that devout women are unable to take part in the education system, and is therefore a form of oppression in itself.

Clever.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 2 December 2010 7:29:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
Go back, read it again, and then get your facts right.

Expedential was a spelling error.

I was very quick to thank Antiseptic for noticing the error.

I trust you have never made a spelling error on these pages.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 2 December 2010 8:30:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And yet very slow to thank R0bert for correcting the even more glaring colossal mathematical error.

Still waiting for that one.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 2 December 2010 9:20:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,
No doubt that the aborigines have been here for a while, clearly before Europeans, so we should acknowledge their place as original inhabitants. In practice, I'm not sure what that means for a discussion on culturally appropriate dress standards.

As for what you found in your little book, many wierd and wonderful things can be found in books. Recently my friend showed me one of his school text books describing human evolution that his school used in the late 1960s. The book, published in 1961, had pictures of Australian Aborigines, who were being described as stone age people. These photos were taken in the 1950s, which was actually the beginning of the space age. This little book went on to describe (with extensive charts) which 'races' were more evolved than others, placing aborignes as the most primitive, Europeans as most evolved, with the Chinese and other 'races' at various rankings in between. 

The moral of the story is don't believe everything you read in books. 

My neceessrily simple mathematical model was designed to make the point of the mutiplicative nature of population growth. A 100 year war with 20000 casualties is a minor fluctuation within an immense growth pattern spanning tens of thousands of imaginary (using the word deliberately) years.     

Robert, 
Low technology often does not hinder population growth, and can even rather be associated with it. See, for example, places like Nigeria or Bangladesh amongst others.

You say that it's safe to assume that Aboriginal populations fluctuated around the ability of the land to feed them. Well, it's not fairly safe to assume anything without first some evidence pointing you in that direction.

Your point may have something to it if there was any evidence to suggest that they had approached a critical mass given their land use. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 2 December 2010 10:01:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Dan, but your '0.5% growth rate' point has already been debunked at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 2 December 2010 10:06:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"And as for the nuns and priests wearing funny clothes? That’s true, but at least we could see their faces, which is kind of the sticking point in the question at hand."
The question of security has been raised as a reason to ban the burqa.I submit, that nuns and priests could carry an AK47 under their 'dresses'?I also believe that 'hoodies' are also a similar threat to security.
DAN S - The book I quoted stats re aboriginal people was from "A short guide to indigenous Australia' written by aboriginal people/historians? I've also read many books/articles about indigenous Australians, by Henry Reynolds,Peter Carey and a recent one, 'Demons at Dusk' by Peter Stewart.The fact remains, that apart from indigenous Australians, the rest of us are 'boat or plane' people or their descendants.

The stats re child abuse victims could be correct - in the US. It also needs to be kept in mind, that the report rate is only a small number - the victims around the world probably go in to 100's of thousands at least? However, just because the majority were boys doesn't prove that the perpetrators were necessarily homosexual - pedophiles assault boys and girls, and sometimes girls were assaulted until they reached puberty. After all, those bastards don't want to leave any 'evidence' behind do they? The SMH had a case of one family with 2 daughters assaulted.

If young women in Australia are wearing the burqa(since 9/11 - I don't recall it much prior to then)then their using this as a protest has a lot of legitimacy, and as someone mentioned earlier, we should be asking why? Perhaps due to them being treated in a hateful and vile manner, both in their home country and here, just might provide the answers - answers we don't want to pursue it would seem. Easier to continue the hateful and discriminatory rhetoric!
Posted by Liz45, Thursday, 2 December 2010 11:19:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45, "If young women in Australia are wearing the burqa(since 9/11 - I don't recall it much prior to then) then their using this as a protest has a lot of legitimacy.."

A simple explanation which is possible if the obvious and traditional western stereotyping of women is set aside, is that these women's choice in wearing the burqa stems from their own fundamentalism. It stretches the credulity to believe that a woman would wear a clothing coffin which itself is a potent symbol world-wide of the most fearful system of discrimination against women, simply to protest against perceived mild unfair treatment in the west.

However, even in the unlikely event that some women might do as you say, wouldn't you be concerned at all and feel obliged to point out the freedom of speech and democracy in Australia that they can and should use instead? After all the other choice, the one you say they are making, is in the direction of rigidity - fundamentalism.

It is astounding that the traditional stereotyping of women is so entrenched and powerful in the West as to deny the possibility that some women could themselves have fundamentalist values (a matter of personality as well as upbringing) and the likely consequences of that for future generations. What happens to children brought up in fundamentalist households where the adult role model closest to them (mum) eschews the available democratic avenues to participate in the political process and chooses instead to retreat further into fundamentalism, cutting off her nose to spite her face?
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 2 December 2010 1:03:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, there is a potential problem for children
who are brought up in fundamentalist religious
households. I agree that it is likely that women
adopt the trappings (pun intended)
of fundamentalism willingly in many cases, and also
that they are like to have profound effects on the
mental wellbeing of their children.

"What happens to children brought up in fundamentalist
households where the adult role model closest to them (mum)
eschews the available democratic avenues to participate in the
political process and chooses instead to retreat further into fundamentalism,
cutting off her nose to spite her face?"

It's a very good question, but certainly not one
that is confined to children of burqa-wearing Muslim
mothers. I would have much the same concerns about
children who are born into some of the fundamentalist
Christian cults, and who are subject to socially exclusive
practices such as home schooling.

However, in this country I think it would be very
difficult for any government to crack down on such
practices of fundamentalist Christian groups,
due to our tradition of freedom of religion.
It would be even more difficult to target exclusionary
practices of non-Christian faith groups, since such
action would rightly invite the additional charge of
discrimination on religious grounds.
Posted by talisman, Thursday, 2 December 2010 1:46:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower brings up a valid point, the fact that some of these women who choose or are forced to wear the burqa/niqab are visibile signs of Islamic fundamentalism.

But I wonder if banning this form of dress will do anything to change the fundamentalist way of thinking. How do you legislate to change someone's mind, whether it is Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, or whatever other -ism? Also, don't the freedoms in Australia allow them to wear the burqa/niqab as a form of protest if they so choose? In a lot of public forums people get shouted down when they express a diferring view so maybe we have (to borrow a term) "structural" problems in our society.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Thursday, 2 December 2010 1:58:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not only Muslim fundamentalists, there are societies where the women perpetuate and insist on honour killing - to be carried out by male relatives of course.

There are cultural traditions that are destructive in themselves or corrosive to democracy and freedom that should not be allowed into this country and strongly discouraged where already imported.

As regards the wearing of the burqa, while I regard a ban as inappropriate because it could give oxygen to troublemakers, the burqa should be discouraged by not making any special concessions to accommodate wearers.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 2 December 2010 2:18:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read an article recently that was written by a young woman of middle eastern descent - she raises a couple of very good points.
Why is only the Middle Eastern form of perceived female oppression that upsets people? Why aren't people concerned about the poverty, the violence of the wars that we are inflicting upon them?
Why isn't it the slavery that affects 20 million mostly women around the world?
She also asserts, that to some men and sadly these days women also, alcohol causes violent behaviour, that is far more hurtful to many. Intimidating and aggressive behaviour is really scary? Nobody suggests that alcohol be prohibited.
If the women in this country are wearing the burqa(a miniscule number of the female population)who just say are daughters of women who never wore it, either in their home country or here, doesn't this point to some other factor than fundamentalism or oppression by their husbands/fathers etc. A protest?
Women in Afghanistan for example didn't wear the burqa during the years of a secular govt - they're being imprisoned in them now, by the Taliban and fundamentalist men. As Malalai Joya says, 'killing a woman is no different to killing a bird' in the eyes of some of these horrific men, and sadly, some women!What are we doing in her country to stop this violence to women on the streets, not just in their homes?
Posted by Liz45, Thursday, 2 December 2010 2:35:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@579 - Do you think that the oppression of women only happens in countries of the middle east, or where there's strong Muslim representation?
You don't have to go past christianity for horrific abuse of women and kids. The sexual abuse; the misogynist attitudes to women; the unnecessary and preventable deaths caused by the catholic church's dogma re condoms etc. The orphans and babies born with HIV - crimes against humanity in my view.
There are many men who practice the Islamic faith who do not abuse women and speak out against it. The abuse of women and girls is repugnant to what they perceive their faith is. They're angry with those who oppress women as it permeates through all men - the same as the accusations against aboriginal men in the NT re child sexual abuse.They assert that their faith dictates respect for women!
The politicians, shock jocks, multi-media who use this type of racist bs are the ones who have a lot to answer for. I recall the behaviour of a well known sydney shock jock and his incitement to violence - he got away with it - no charges, nought! Disgusting!
Posted by Liz45, Thursday, 2 December 2010 2:42:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hadn't noticed, Dan S de Merengue...

>>Go back, read it again, and then get your facts right. Expedential was a spelling error. I was very quick to thank Antiseptic for noticing the error.<<

Ok. Let's have a look at the entire sequence, just to refresh our memories.

Item One: "After 400 years, expediential growth would give the group an expected population of 73"

Item Two: "Thanks for picking me up on the spelling error. The word I was thinking of was expodential, not expedential." (Note that the spelling error contained a spelling error. Good one)

Item Three: "I believe that exponential is a particular case of expodential, which is the more general term."

Bzzzzzt. Wrong.

Item Four: "Expedential was a spelling error."

Sorry, where was the apology again? I seem to have missed it.

>>I trust you have never made a spelling error on these pages.<<

I have indeed.

Twice.

But I have been able to steer clear of malapropisms.

Clichés I also avoid like the plague.

As you yourself said, so perceptively:

>>What has this to do with Burqas? Nothing (it wasn’t me who brought this up), its an opportunity to reveal how otherwise intelligent people sometimes don’t stop to think.<<

Elegantly put, if I may say so.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 2 December 2010 2:47:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Expediential:
The use of particularly poor exemplars of a respectable field of study as "straw-man" arguments. esp in creationist literature, where anything to snow an audience is acceptable. For instance it is expediential to the creationist bandwagon to pretend that the odd dodgy book on evolution has anything at all to do with other books that may be relevant to the burqa thread. If religious works were held to the same lofty and socially objective standards he presumes to hold science to, I suspect that Dan's religion would not exist, nor anything resembling.

Expodential is not a general term for anything. Not in my copy of OED, nor Webster, nor Funk'nWagnall's, nor Chambers. Perhaps Dan gets his knowledge of english from the same made-up sources he gets his theology.

Of course, he *may* have making a joke at his own expense....

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 2 December 2010 4:24:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I knew that much mirth and amusement can come from an autocorrection of a spelling error, but I didn’t know how much until now. It’s sent several people scurrying through the dictionaries. It’s almost like Christmas come early.

I wrote expediential, when I was thinking of the word expodential. Antiseptic saw the fun in that, and I thanked him straight away for picking me up on the error. I struck an e when I should have struck o and the autocorrect inserted the i; thigh slapping stuff.

Expodential is an acceptable term with the mathematical function that is often associated with population growth modelling. It was the word that I was taught in school when learning about geometric series. That the word exponential is the current term in vogue these days when raising a base number to a power is possibly due to the Americanisation of English. If so, this makes me wonder why someone who calls himself Antiseptic (considering the obvious rhyming slang) would want to support it.

Just to increase your delight, an exponential function is the function e^x where e is the number (approximately 2.7182818) such that the function e^x equals its own derivative. Sometimes the term exponential function is used more generally for functions of the form cb^x, where the base b is any positive real number, not necessarily e. This usage is now more fashionable, though the term expodential is acceptable for the wider family of functions.

I stand to be corrected, no doubt.

Rusty,
A religious work (as you call them) such as the Bible has been subjected and analysed to the nth degree by innumerable scholars for Millennia. Scholars have not taken short cuts in the investigation of its last jot and tittle (and even contentious spelling variations). Yet they still can’t print them fast enough for the bookshelves.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 2 December 2010 5:14:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For instance, it is expediential to assert without a reference. Go on, whatever you try will be within easy access. Since you claim to be a teacher, give an accessible reference for the proles as well.

It is further expediential to use a rather special case for your counterexample. I could use the "creationist quote book" as a reason to say that any "christian" using it as a bolster for their faith was dishonestly self-serving and a disgrace to any church. This is more accurately equivalent to your use of a particularly slanted book to attempt to conflate societal failings with evolution.

Since you mention it, the "bible" may well be excellent literature. The popularity is entirely due to fanatical pressures that other books do not routinely enjoy outside of scientology and other nutty religions. Hubbards books were fixtures in the NYT best-seller list, but not because people who wanted them were paying money to keep them. The heavy use of marketing will sell anything.

Merit, there's another thing.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 2 December 2010 6:23:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a step forward that you recognize the inevitable, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I stand to be corrected, no doubt.<<

Expodential is not a word. It never has been. It has no validity, even in mathematics. If you were indeed taught the word at school (which I take leave to doubt), your teacher was in error. You will not find it anywhere in literature, mathematical textbooks, the Bible, or anywhere in the full Oxford English Dictionary.

The only amusing part is the lengths you are prepared to go to in order to avoid reality.

Which is absolutely par for the course for you, as we have discovered in other discussions - notably, of course, in your attachment to creationism.

You are in denial. It was, after all, a simple misstep that could easily have been passed off as a spelling mistake, upon which no-one would have given a second glance. Now, each attempt you make to justify yourself serves only to deepen the embarrassment you will feel when you admit that you got it wrong.

Think of it as a character self-assessment, Dan S de Merengue. And ask yourself, "what does this say about me?"
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 2 December 2010 6:25:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, 'expodental', while not appearing in my spell-checker, is in fact an adjective describing something that exposes teeth to an onlooker.

E.g. "she has an expodental smile".

Basically, it's a nice way of saying 'toothy'.

But there is no such word 'expodential'.

Did you mean toothy?
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 2 December 2010 7:32:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Someone please take Liz45 out to one of the less savoury aboriginal communities - the sort that triggered 'intervention' about 15 years too late. Leave her there for a month to absorb the 'culture' and she might realise how ridiculous her following comments are ..
"the same as the accusations against aboriginal men in the NT re child sexual abuse.They assert that their faith dictates respect for women!"
Aboriginal women suffer the highest rates of death and injury by aboriginal men compared to any other demographic. Ditto children as result of abuse, neglect and lack of education.

And what makes Liz think that assertations made by aboriginal men on the subject carry any more truth than those of the Catholic Church when confronted with the appalling instances of abuse by clergy? Oh hang on ... I'm probably being unforgivably racist by even suggesting such a thing is possible ....

Not that this has much to do with whether it is acceptable for Australian citizens, residents or visitors to completely conceal their identity ....

Cast off the religious fixation Liz. The burqa belongs to a male dominated CULTURE which dictates that women are basically property, firstly of father, then husband and should she find herself without either it will be a 'senior male' such as uncle, brother or even son who controls her life. This CULTURE requires that the woman, from onset of menstruation (can be much earlier), be covered completely as to obliterate her from the view of anyone outside her immediate family. To be 'exposed' to others is a dishonour to her family and tribe - not her 'religion'. I guess you think that the practice and trappings of this CULTURE are quite desirable in modern day Australia?

I, and most others don't care if 'Jihad Jenny' wants to cover up from tips of toes to the top of her head - as long as the face is exposed and her identity is open. This goes for every man woman & child regardless of race, religion, personal idiosyncracy ... whatever! NO DISCRIMINATION!
Posted by divine_msn, Thursday, 2 December 2010 11:19:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty, I don’t claim to be a teacher. I was a teacher many years ago.

I don’t know why you call the book I mentioned slanted. You could say that it was anachronistic, but it’s not renegade. It is representative of the views held by the mainstream of educators and others back in the 1960s.

Thanks, Trashcanman. No I didn’t mean toothy.

But I think a light has gone on in somewhere in my dim recesses, and I think I know now what’s going on with this word.

You are all correct. Expodential is not a real word, and yet it does appear in usage, even in print sometimes.

For instance, in this discussion on the Yahoo Answers website, one Cbear asks, “With expodential population growth what steps do you think the world should do to prevent this?” The website moderator responds, “Been reading some of your anwsers I'm glad I got some really good views of people who have read what expodential growth rate is.”
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060628191849AAoPxDm

So the word does live on in discussions, but only as a non standard varient. It’s a phonological mutant. It won’t be found in a standard dictionary. Yet some who have mastered mathematical concepts beyond that which I ever did do occasionally use it in discussions, such as in this exchange:

On the Physics Forums website, FrankR asks for help in ‘expressing a trig function as a complex expodential’. Claude Bile responds. He understands his question, and doesn’t bother explicitly correcting him on his use of the non standard word, expodential, as he well knows what he is talking about, but uses the correct word, exponential, in his answer.
You need to put: - cos(A1+A2+A3) + isin(A1+A2+A3) into exponential form: e^-i(A1+A2+A3), then ...
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=643
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 2 December 2010 11:44:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Dan, it's wrong
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 3 December 2010 6:42:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done Dan S de Merengue.

You have managed to fill an entire post with an explanation of how you managed to misstate "exponential" as "expodential", without once saying those magic words "I was wrong".

It isn't a good look, you know.

Deny, deny, deny. Then, when your back is against the wall and you have nowhere left to hide, attempt a justification of your denial by saying "I'm not the only one to have made this mistake - look, here are some others."

Once again, I recommend that you ask yourself, "Michael, what does this say about me?"
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 3 December 2010 8:33:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must have been correct in the first place. It seems like Dan had a cold. :-)
Posted by JanF, Friday, 3 December 2010 9:34:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is my favourite line so far in this spelling debate.

"Clichés I also avoid like the plague."
Posted by pelican, Friday, 3 December 2010 9:43:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Dan, a teacher of mathematics, which you used in another thread to attempt to bolster a claim about summed probabilities, despite having used the wrong model for the situation described. A basic mistake you tried to whitewash with your presumed "authority".

On this most recent example, I am certain you have never perused the type of papers you offer, nor have any routine understanding of the content. You have never been exposed to the word "expodential" such as to regard it as an "acceptable term". As you yourself point out, the only usage is in discussions and articles where the typo is beneath notice, not the sort of materials with which you were "taught in school". That is two deliberate lies. It is a trivial part of intellectual conduct to just not do so. An old textbook would have been a good place to start if you are claiming "acceptability" or archaic origins. BTW, my *full* OED has many rare terms even centuries out-of-date.

You were trying to snow your audience, using a technique that works on creationists, but not on people deserving of being regarded as adults. Do you routinely lie so "expedientially" to audiences that don't know better? To so blithely think a real adult might be sucked in by such a sham? Are you so ignorant of routine rigour as to think this normal?

As with most people of poor powers pretending to be more, you attempt to co-opt a gravitas you do not deserve. When your nose is completely rubbed in the fact that you were wrong, it is not just a rebuke of the mistake, it means you have been severly derelict in conducting yourself. I regard this as typical of creationists, and reflective of the bereft nature of their theology and of their character.

I do appreciate the coining of "expediential". It is entirely apposite that You Yourself have accidentally invented a term that accurately carries the whiff of nakedly unashamed opportunism displayed by creationist marketing and apologetics.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 3 December 2010 11:39:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, so "expediential" came out of a spell-checker. The word is still wonderfully evocative.

A pity, I should like for Dan to have coined such a descriptively clumsy word.

Rusty

PS Apologies to Burqa debate, perhaps the thread could be re-railed?
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 3 December 2010 12:46:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by divine_msn, Thursday, 2 December 2010 11:19:36 PM

You are very selective in what you comment on re abuse of aboriginal women. I haven't denied the stats re domestic violence and how aboriginal women are 40 TIMES more likely to be abused than the rest of the community. However, the INTERVENTION has not implemented the 80 recommendations of the 'Little Children Are Sacred' report; nor have you stated that the figures re jailing and deaths in custody of aboriginal men is higher than under the Apartheid regime in Sth Africa.In over 3 yrs of the Intervention,less than a handful of men have been arrested let alone convicted. You left out,that too many young aboriginal girls are sexually abused by white men - truck drivers, who 'own' a girl? oOu didn't mention that the programs that were helping victims of domestic violence leave violent men was stopped, nor the overall point, that there were 12 Reports prior to the Little Children etc(which in fact was NT study) and the Howard govt ignored them.
There've been many people including from the Unions, MUA, CFMEU who, unlike the federal govt are assisting the people and built perhaps the first house -when govt money has gone in beaurecratic costs, brand new Toyota 4 wheel drives, forcing indigenous people from their land, land aquisitions and a high increase in the number of mining applications - from about 240-490.
You also ignore the over-riding fact, that when you treat people with racism and oppression, social 'ills' are the result. It's also been proved in many countries, that denying people from decision making(as the report recommended) doesn't achieve positive outcomes.
How many of the aboriginal kids with serious ear problems have been seen by a ENT specialist?I suggest none to a few. There are many aboriginal people who do not agree with the Intervention!
Posted by Liz45, Friday, 3 December 2010 1:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do I have the wrong thread? I thought this was about wearing of the burqua?
Posted by JanF, Friday, 3 December 2010 1:41:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I went to my local aboriginal culture centre to hear a young man from the NT;I also went to Sydney on Oct 29,to the Jobs With Justice rally,where the same aboriginal man from the NT spoke about how aboriginal workers are only being paid CentreLink payments,50% of which is quarantined, while they work next to non-aboriginal people on award wages. A young aboriginal man with a broken arm was forced to work on a construction site, or threatened with no income - this would not happen on any other site, due to OH&S laws - out of sight, do what you like.There was great support from the Unions both times. The MUA rep said he was embarrassed and ashamed. I've read first hand reports of many who've been to the NT!
The NT govt has decreed, that indigenous language cannot be used/taught in the first 4 hours of school days, even though experts have stated, that in order for kids to learn to read, you teach them in their native tongue first, then English - this decree by the govt is a blatant attempt to stamp out indigenous language and culture. Non-aboriginal people scream about 'new arrivals' not adapting to our way of life, but govts think it doesn't apply in aboriginal communities. I suggest you read the National Indigenous Times; articles on line at GreenLeft; the Koori Mail(I think)and go on site to the Intervention site! Read Mick & Pat Dodson, or Larissa Bernhardt, or Mike Munro on the Intervention - not 'lamestream' media!
Posted by Liz45, Friday, 3 December 2010 1:50:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suggest Liz45 get a job as a Health Worker in any one of the dysfunctional communities and see how long it takes to colour her world REAL. BTW it is hard for medical intervention to occur - Community Nurse/(Indigenous)Health Worker level through to Specialist Medicos unless parents bring children to be treated. Seriously there is plenty of unnecessary death and irreversable damage brought about by ignorance, apathy and neglect apart from any meditated abuse.

BTW Aboriginal men in jail are mostly there for serious crimes OR repeat repeat repeat minor offences and chronic fine evasion - in which case the sentence is usually short. They are less likely these days to be handed a custodial sentence due to 'cultural sensitivity' factors but insist on facing the justice system with far greater regularly than the average bear.

However the discussion is about burqa banning and not once has Liz45 addressed any of the points or questions I've posed regarding her/his viewpoints on the subject.

For instance - does Liz45 support the practice of cultural traditions imported from other countries which deny a woman any control over her life choices? The burqa is merely an external, albeit confronting symbol of this culture.

Does Liz45 support or reject the suggestion that adjusting the burqa so that face and identity of the wearer are discernable may be a reasonable solution/compromise to a cultural clash? Does Liz45 believe that immigrants adapt to a new environment or must the new environment adjust to satisfy the newcomer? These are the issues.
Posted by divine_msn, Friday, 3 December 2010 2:46:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
divine_msn-The number of women in Australia wearing a burqa would be lucky to reach 1% of the female population. Don't you think it's a bit hysterical carrying on like this? As I said earlier, a small percentage of men act violently when drunk; should we refuse all men the right to drink alcohol? Then whey should we ban the burqa when a small number of middle eastern men oppress women by forcing them to cover themselves.There is no sense or logic to this hysteria?
The idea that women couldn't make up their own mind to wear a burqa - that it is forced on them by a man/men, negates any idea that these women are intelligent beings making a decision for themselves - you or I may not see any sense in it, but it's not a crime, so why the nonsense. This is a form of oppression - others wanting to enshrine into law what a person wears - legally! You all contradict yourselves!

Someone earlier raised the question of how Muslim men "own" women by handing them from father to husband etc? Excuse me, what planet have you been on, don't fathers in this country do exactly the same thing?Mine did over 40 yrs ago? Watch weekend papers, news clips etc?

Wasn't it the norm for women to take their husband's name(has nothing to do with legality) and didn't women only promise to 'love and obey' in our marriage service? I did in 1962 - it was the norm, didn't know any better - but I grew up! Phew, thank goodness!Western society has heaps of oppressive attitudes to women and girls. Women like me have been struggling against them for years!
Have you been to the NT? What is your experiences?
Posted by Liz45, Friday, 3 December 2010 9:47:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45
Western Society has heaps of oppressive attitudes to Women and Girls.

Indeed it does, all the more reason to ban the wearing of the burqa, heaven knows we don’t need to introduce any more kinds of oppression. Although it is still hard to get past the double standard mind set to get a conviction in a rape trial here at least we do have something set in place to try to get justice for women, in these burqa countries they execute the woman for the rape. It’s a sure bet rapes don’t get reported there too often. Although it probably happens just as much there as it does here.

As you say the male hierarchy in the Christian religions were and are in some cases still as ignorant and small minded in their attitude to women as the Muslim leaders. A good reason to be wary of all religions and their man decreed interpretation of rules and symbols.

All these doctrines are written and interpreted from a male point of view. As a woman I hate the sight of any religious restrictions on women. Unfortunately a lot of women allow themselves to be brainwashed into believing this stuff. These are the women who say they wear the Burqa by choice. They are just as ridiculous and stupid as the nuns who wear their silly outfits. Weren’t the nuns a cruel lot too, to the poor little orphans in their care. Incidentally nun’s outfits never stopped them from being raped by soldiers in war zones. So much for a sexless outfit detering rape.

It is not society that is intolerant of religions but religions who are intolerant and aloof from the society around them who are the problem.

All agree there is one supreme God, so why the constant religious conflict. Doctrines; written and enforced by male priests(witchdoctors )that’s where the trouble lies.
Countless wars have been fought over these stupid religious apartheid practices.

Ban the damm burqa along with nun’s robes, Turbins and Jewish saucer hats and the world will be better for it. Women in particular.
Posted by CHERFUL, Friday, 3 December 2010 11:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A simple, straightforward solution to the burqa "dilemma":

Anyone should be free to wear a burqa.
Anyone should be free to refuse service to anonymous burqa-clad humanoids.

Just as service station proprietors are free to refuse service to helmet-wearing motorcyclists.
Just as banks are free to refuse service to anyone wearing Ned Kelly headgear.
Just as post offices are free to refuse service to people with buckets on their heads.

Fair.
Equitable.
Reasonable.
Just.

Problem solved.
Posted by Proxy, Saturday, 4 December 2010 7:43:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Language is a wonderfully malleable concept, is it not. CHERFUL has found a new application for the word "oppression"

>>...all the more reason to ban the wearing of the burqa, heaven knows we don’t need to introduce any more kinds of oppression.<<

Introducing a law that describes what clothing may or may not be worn, surely, is one of the more blatant misuses of legislative power.

While not as oppressive as, say, insisting that some members of the community should wear a yellow star with the word "Jude", prominently on their outer clothing, it is from the same control-freak mentality.

Don't forget also, that it can be used as a form of "reverse oppression".

If you were a burka-wearing Muslim female - whether you did so under coercion or voluntarily - in Turkey or Syria, you would be excluded from the education system.

How would that be, for a way to keep the little lady under your control, eh
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 4 December 2010 7:51:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proxy is on the path to a resolution that would respect everyone's rights. Many of us do feel their right to know who they are dealing with/keep themselves safe somewhat infringed when another is wearing an impenetrable mask. This sense is very much behind outrage at those who insist on wearing this pretentious garb.

Liz45 does carry on at length - so much so that I've stopped looking at what it's about. Indigenous issues still I assume, as though presenting a thesis, bit by bit.
Posted by Wal, Saturday, 4 December 2010 8:47:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Language is wonderfully malleable, but our spelling must be precise. So Thanks Antiseptic, a second time, and others, for sharpening my spelling; the antilogarithm function, exponential, has no D.  

However Rusty, your make unfair comment in your first paragraph. Could you please reference this supposed case of summed probabilities, so that this allegation does not rest on your recollection alone. I do remember making argument based on probabilities. I don't remember claiming to be an authority on anything. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 4 December 2010 8:51:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles <introducing a law that describes what clothing may or may not be worn surely is one of the most blatant misuses of power.>

If the freedom to wear anything you like truly exists then why is nobody allowed to go anywhere in this country with swastikas on their clothing or Klu Klux Klan outfits on. After all just wearing an outfit like that is only exercising freedom of choice. Believe it or not some people are offended in the same way by seeing people wearing a burqa down the street; when people wearing these same clothes have killed white people and attacked their countries in terrorist attacks. The same as people wearing the Klu Klux Klan outfits killed black people. Why is it O.K to wear the burqa but not a German Swatstika. Yes I know you will use the argument that some muslims are moderate and not terrorrists, but so were some Germans moderate, to the point of actually helping and hiding their Jewish neighbours. So that argument doesn’t wash.

Although I don’t think there is actually any law against wearing a German uniform or a klu Klux Klan outfit the amount of societal outrage and cries of discrimination pretty soon ensure that these clothes are not worn. In fact it may actually be able to be enforced under the discrimination act. So much for the freedom to wear whatever you like. No doubt you yourself would be opposed to people being totally free to wear what they like in respect to the two examples above.

Proxy - Anyone should be free to wear the burqa
Anyone should be free to refuse service to burqa-clad humanoids

Proxy has the answer here, at what point does the freedom to wear the burqa override the freedom of people in society to feel safe in cafes, shops,banks etc
Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 4 December 2010 10:15:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is precisely my point, CHERFUL.

>>Although I don’t think there is actually any law against wearing a German uniform or a klu Klux Klan outfit...<<

If there is no law against wearing "swastikas on their clothing or Klu Klux Klan outfits", what is the case for singling out the burqa?

By all means impose the same rules as for motorcycle helmets in shops, banks etc. No problem there. But I haven't noticed an outcry that we should forbid, by law, the wearing of motorcycle helmets.

We all know there is another agenda at work here, don't we? We're just too polite to mention it.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 5 December 2010 7:09:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cherful:"at what point does the freedom to wear the burqa override the freedom of people in society to feel safe in cafes, shops,banks etc"

At what point does our cofee-sipper gain the right to tell others what to wear - whether she "feels safe" or not.

There is far too much attention paid to people's "right to feel safe". Life is inherently unsafe - every single one of us is doomed to die a death more or less horrible.

Why should the desire of some to live wrapped in cotton wool override the desire of someone else to wear a piece of clothing?

I'm sure that if I were to suggest that short shorts should be banned because they may conflict with my desire not to be sexually aroused by passers-by whilst having cofee with my children you'd say this is my problem, not that of the shorts-wearer and you'd be right.

I say that your issue is your problem and I'm also right.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 5 December 2010 7:57:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We all know there is another agenda at work here,
don't we? We're just too polite to mention it."

In a nutshell, Pericles.

I think the burka is indeed a symbol,
not only of oppressively patriarchal fundamentalist
Islam, but even more so for those bigoted non-Muslims
for whom it presents an excellent focus for their thinly
disguised hate towards those who are culturally different
from themselves.

We don't need to introduce any special laws to discourage
the wearing of the burka. It can be treated by regulation
in much the same way as the wearing of motorcycle helmets
or balaclavas. Where there is a valid concern about security
and/or facial identification, then these can be dealt with
by the business or agency concerned.

There is no need to abandon our commitment to individual
freedoms by passing stupid and discriminatory laws that
restrict what women are allowed to wear in public.
Posted by talisman, Sunday, 5 December 2010 10:20:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Why should the desire of some to live wrapped in cotton wool
override the desire of someone else to wear a piece of clothing?>>

Why should the desire of a pedestrian to be seen by a motorist
override the desire of that motorist to restrict their own vision with a sack over their head?

"A WAKEFIELD window cleaner has been cautioned by police after they caught him driving down the street wearing an Osama Bin Laden mask."

"A police spokesman could not confirm whether the warning was issued because his view may have been restricted or because of the nature of the mask"

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Window-cleaner-gets-a-caution.6649519.jp

What's to stop Osama Bin Laden driving down the street in a burqa?

If he was stopped by police would he be able to sue them for violating his religious beliefs?

Is a burqa a mask?

If a burqa is not a mask when a Muslimah is wearing one
does it become a mask when an infidel is wearing one?

If wearing a mask is illegal because it obscures driving vision should vision-obscuring "religious" headgear
be exempted because the right to drive in a tent overrides the right of another road user to be seen?

Is a burqa <<a piece of clothing>> or a religio-politico statement?
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 5 December 2010 10:40:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proxy:"Why should the desire of a pedestrian to be seen by a motorist
override the desire of that motorist to restrict their own vision with a sack over their head?"

False analogy. The pedestrian has good reason to believe that driving a car while blindfolded is not merely dangerous, it's dangerously stupid. A bit like allowing churches to run child care facilities.

On the other hand, the hypothetical latte sippers have nothing but their own imagination to base their "fear" on. A bit like religious zealots of all stripes.

Proxy:"What's to stop Osama Bin Laden driving down the street in a burqa?"

Nothing. What's to stop you (or Osama) riding down the street wearing a motorcycle helmet?
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 5 December 2010 12:07:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<What's to stop...Osama...riding down the street wearing a motorcycle helmet?>>

Osama would be subject to revealing his identity if he was wearing a helmet whereas
he would be less likely to be subject to revealing his identity in a burqa.

Related good news:

Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda has the support of less than a quarter of the population of modern, moderate Indonesia.
That's right, only 53,000,000 Indonesians have a favourable view of Al Qaeda.
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

So next time you see an anonymous humanoid in a burqa, relax.
It's probably a modern, moderate Muslim.
(Is that a trioxymoron?)
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 5 December 2010 12:47:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@CHERFUL - I agree with most of what you said, although, to think that women in Australia aren't capable of making up their own minds re wearing a burqa is an insult too. To think that if our religious attitudes are over the top, they must be forced on us by men, negates any recognition, that many women choose to wear a burqa -their choice. As I've said before, drunk men assault other men and women, but nobody suggests that we ban alcohol. It's the same logic as some bright spark exercised years ago re rape of women - ordered women off the streets after dark?
The greatest danger to women's health and safety around the world is violence by men; that is why 16 days from 25 Nov-10 Dec.have been set aside by the UN to alert people to the horror of these stats, and to the elimination of violence towards women. Rape is used more now than ever as another 'weapon' of war.
The West has its own forms of oppression against women. We shouldn't walk around on the high moral ground and tut-tut the nasty fundamentalists from the Middle East.
I was bashed by a nun at school,as were several of my classmates. One brother was sexually abused by a Brother, and a sister by a priest.Good little catholics all! It still goes on!
We need some perspective and logic in the discussion! I feel no threat by a woman wearing a burqa, in fact, I've given them a hug of solidarity - I can't say the same for being out after dark, even driving my car. As for walking, never alone unless well lit - don't feel comfortable at all!Australian men need to look at their own sexist and oppressive attitudes towards women!
Posted by Liz45, Sunday, 5 December 2010 3:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we want some balance and common sense in the argument, what about the West's sexualisation of girls? Having granddaughters, I find that objectionable. I took action when a major store started selling 'bras' for girls 6-10? How ridiculous, or make up etc.I'm not talking about playing dress ups, I mean for real. Giving pubescent girls medication to stop maturity, so they can compete in gymnastics longer. We tolerate violent/sexist/and frequently abusive messages in video and/or computer games. I think these practices would cause more harm for young people than having a woman wearing a burqa?
The use of the burqa as a security issue is baseless, when we don't raise any questions about young people, usually males,who wear hoodies while driving. I've had to take drastic action to avoid a collision, only to see the driver with a hoodie on - couldn't see? Or wearing it while riding a bike?
If women from a middle eastern background are wearing the burqa as a form of protest, then I say, good on them. How would we feel is a third of NSW was killed by a foreign country,who was only after our coal, or uranium, and used lies to get support to do it, and whipped up the rest of the world to racist views about Australia! That's what happened to Iraq & Afghanistan, and will perhaps happen again with Iran!
Incidently, prior to our invasion/occupation,those 3 countries were westernised-in fact, wearing the burqa was banned in at least 2 countries not too many yrs ago!
The West 'created' the fundamentalists - the US 'created' bin Laden; encouraged Saddam!
Posted by Liz45, Sunday, 5 December 2010 3:33:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I love the notion that the wearing of the burqua represents the oppression of women by their husbands - who are (allegedly) forcing them to wear it and thereby removing their freedom of choice.

The solution?

Make the State pass laws to to force them NOT to wear it, also the removal of another freedom of choice.
Posted by wobbles, Monday, 6 December 2010 1:26:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proxy:"Osama would be subject to revealing his identity if he was wearing a helmet whereas
he would be less likely to be subject to revealing his identity in a burqa."

Huh? The wearing of motorcycle helments is obligatory. If he took it off he'd be breaking the law.

Dear me, is this the best argument you have?
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 6 December 2010 5:48:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is fascinating to observe the contortions evident here, as the attempts to justify the unjustifiable reach ever more hysterical heights.

I loved this one.

>>What's to stop Osama Bin Laden driving down the street in a burqa? If he was stopped by police would he be able to sue them for violating his religious beliefs?<<

The imagery contained in this is hilarious. Osama bin Laden on a motorbike, wearing a burka, being pulled over by the police.

"'Allo allo allo. Ridin' yer bike in a burka, eh? Off wiv it, I say"

"But officer, if you force me, a devout Muslim lady innocently riding her motorbike, to remove my most sacred disguise - er, head covering, I will be obliged to report you to the anti-discrimination people, forthwith"

"Oh. Right. In that case young lady, you can be on your way."

"Why thank you officer"

"No worries. By the way, that's a bitchin' hog..."

Thanks Proxy, you made my day.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 6 December 2010 7:57:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Incidentally, Dan S de Merengue, it was never about spelling.

>>Language is wonderfully malleable, but our spelling must be precise. So Thanks Antiseptic, a second time, and others, for sharpening my spelling; the antilogarithm function, exponential, has no D.<<

Your error, still uncorrected, was to insist that the word itself not only exists, but is in common use.

>>I believe that exponential is a particular case of expodential, which is the more general term.<<

>>Expodential is an acceptable term with the mathematical function that is often associated with population growth modelling. It was the word that I was taught in school when learning about geometric series. That the word exponential is the current term in vogue these days when raising a base number to a power is possibly due to the Americanisation of English.<<

It is a wonderful test of character, is it not, to be able to admit an error, freely and generously accepting that on this occasion, you were wrong.

A test that you have failed.

And that you continue to fail, by still insisting that it was all just a "spelling error".

You claimed that you...

>>...wrote expediential, when I was thinking of the word expodential... I struck an e when I should have struck o and the autocorrect inserted the i<<

Given that "expediential" is not actually a real word, your insistence that it was inserted by a spellchecker is itself a blatant, barefaced untruth.

Yet still you practice self-deception.

No-one else is deceived, by the way.

You really need to ask yourself, "what does this say about me?"
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 6 December 2010 8:22:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I reckon it's time to let Dan off. People deal with social embarrassment differently. There is no need for a public crucifiction.
Posted by JanF, Monday, 6 December 2010 9:03:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

It was in early April of this year. Do learn to look things up. Real students can, you know. Then you would be a lesser blight on the public face of "christianity".

You are consistently unfaithful in samll things Dan. Therefore I think you are a sham. Your touted beliefs do not motivate you to good behaviour in even minor matters. I already think your "religion" (most particularly and especially your literalist subtype) is garbage. It doesn't prevent you being a liar, even about small matters.

You are a hypocrite, Dan. An habitual liar. Get over it.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 6 December 2010 9:55:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JanF,

No, I don't think so.

Dan adopts a lofty tone and pretends to a knowledge of technical matters and of academic standards in numerous eforts to appear authoritative (particularly in evolutionvsreligion matters).

His views are shallow and poorly informed. His views against science are malignantly misinformed and intended to sway any who might not be able to contradict him conveniently. He is a shill for an organisation that wants a visibly shabby theology to control more of our decision making processes and organistaions.

He needs showing up frequently so as to prevent him misleading others, which he tries to do whenever uncorrected.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 6 December 2010 10:06:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, JanF,
You have to wonder what is motivating this. As Rusty says, “Apologies to Burqa debate,” but there’s a lynching to be had here over a spelling error.

Pericles,
On this website, we give our opinions in 350 words or less. I gave my opinion over the authorised spelling of a word. It has since been corrected.

Spelling errors are not considered heinous crimes, unless you want to make them so. Spelling is not the highest of all values for most people, mathematicians included. Spelling errors are only really a grave sin perhaps for book publicists and spelling bee contestants.

The exponential function does have particular and general aspects to it. (If you don’t believe me, or don’t understand what I’m talking about, then ask David Fisher. DavidF is someone who browses these web pages, and is someone whom I perceive as having more experience in mathematics than myself.) As I mentioned earlier, it has the particular characteristic that for the exponential e^x, where e is the number (approximately 2.7182818), the function equals its own derivative.There are also the more general family of exponential functions that don’t have this exact quality.

By the way, if you reach for your dictionary, you’ll see that you are wrong. Expediential is a real word.

expediential, (adjective)
Of, relating to, or concerned with what is expedient.

But we’ll hold off the public hanging. Although it’s been a while since we’ve seen a nice tar and feathering.

In general, I think I should be honoured that intelligent people would bother to hold my postings up to such scrutiny.

Rusty,
You spoke earlier of the important need to reference things properly. (Was that only for me, or does that count for others also?)

As I asked previously, can you reference your allegation of summed probabilities so that we have a chance of knowing what you are talking about. Otherwise it remains inherently vague and unsubstantiated (it looks like you’re making it up).

You’re making a personal accusation against me. Reference it or withdraw it.

Put up or shut up.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 6 December 2010 4:43:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles- <If there is no law against wearing swastikas on their clothing or Klu Klux Klan outfits what is the case for singling out the Burqa.>

I think you will find the police(the law) would be brought in pretty quickly if groups of people persisted in wearing these outfits in public even after being criticised in the media or warned by the police not to do it. They would very promptly be asked to leave any coffee shop that Antiseptic might be sipping his latte in. Why? If there is no law against it.

If they didn’t leave the coffee shop the police would then be called.(the Law) - but you say there is no law against it.

The laws they would use to prosecute them would be wearing an outfit in public so as to cause fear or for being a public nuisance. Have no doubt they could and would use these laws if people persisted in wearing these outfits. The law hasn’t been used yet because normally people are intelligent enough not to cause offence by wearing them or to desist after being warned. But the law would be used.

So no, I don’t agree with you that there is no law against wearing these outfits. It must be concluded that if tested to the extreme there would be a law used to stop it.

There were a group of soldiers recently who took photographs of themselves wearing Klu Klux Klan outfits, you may have seen this in the newspapers. The army said they would investigate the incident. Why? If as you say you are free to wear what you like in this country.

Do you think Prince Harry will ever wear a Swastika to a fancy dress party again?
Posted by CHERFUL, Monday, 6 December 2010 6:52:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

So, you are finally demonstrating that when it applies to lies you care about, *suddenly* truthfulness matters.

All of my posts contain errors.

It took an example applying to your own precious self to bring you to this, while your *own* lying remains below your radar.

Oh, you object to illustrative examples? Get over yourself.

You possess the skills, or want to be regarded as such, use them.

And for the record, and to cement the issue firmly for you, casually stating that "expodential" is an "accepted term" you were taught in school, *as if* you were privy to some special knowledge, is lying. A lie. A deliberate falsehood. That makes you according to my dictionary a liar. Both my standard dictionary and my full OED.

*you* are the habitual and self-serving liar here Dan. Fix it, stop complaining like a caught-out schoolchild, just fix it.

Understand?

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 6 December 2010 7:15:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"After nearly 10 years of marriage that produced five children,
Mufleh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia still has not seen his wife’s face"
http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/saudi-women-s-veil-versus-modernity-2010-12-05-1.325035?

Maybe this burqa thing is not such a bad idea.
Some people may prefer not to see the mantelpiece when they're stoking the fire,
particularly when the old girl is getting a bit past it.
Posted by Proxy, Monday, 6 December 2010 8:26:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Proxy - You're gross!And how would you like people to see you as you get older? If you're lucky to survive too many years with a mouth like yours - it will happen! Age that is! Remember, what goes around comes around! You might end up real ugly - outside as well as in!
Posted by Liz45, Monday, 6 December 2010 9:41:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No disrespect intended Liz but Proxy's comment made me laugh. Thanks also to Rusty Catheter for the clarification.
Posted by JanF, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 7:30:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is even funnier to think that the Mufleh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia could ID his camels and goats but not his missus.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 8:11:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I feel that the custom of hiding the face has been insufficiently theorised. What does it mean? What is it's purpose both stated and implied?

Face hiding is generally an expression of shame across cultures - a kind of existential denial of one's existence out of a sense of unworthiness.

Is it intended then for women whose cultural beliefs (not Islam) require them to hide their faces that they must submit to and live daily with this most extreme form of loss of the self and loss of individuality?

If one just considers face hiding on its own as a separate issue from religious practice it seems even more cruel and inhumane. To associate the practice with Islam gives it a legitimacy that it does not appear to deserve. That people still feel a need to do this in modern society is frightening, in terms of the kinds of mentalities that lead men and women to believe it is necessary.

I wonder how face hiding originated. Perhaps it was an issue over bride price where there was much competition for attractive brides leaving the ugly ones unwed and childless, thereby risking survival of the group. The tribal elders may have originally required it in order to ensure that ugly women were also married off. If so, it would be interesting to investigate the effect this breeding practice has had on the quality and attractiveness of offspring. The practice appears intended to defy nature.

I imagine the practice is particularly offensive to Westerners because of the high value they place on individuality and free choice.

One might argue in its favour that the practice is fairer to those not blessed with beauty - or is it, if it increases the incentive to live their lives in hiding, ashamed to be seen for who they are? People who are not beautiful also love and are loved and live fulfilling and meaningful lives. To emphasise beauty as a value in reverse, as with modern advertising, is just as dehumanising - the other side of the coin perhaps and possibly arising from similar motives.
Posted by JanF, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 8:30:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JanF,

I'd go with the simple, obvious reason.

Some wanted the bag to cover everything with just enough opening so the woman could keep the obligatory five paces behind, that is all.

As an Australian politician was fond of saying, 'You can always bet on self interest' (or words to that effect) and it wouldn't have been the self interest of the woman, who rated below her owner's goat or camel.

From Proxy's link, nothing has changed,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11291&page=20
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 11:06:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting thoughts, JanF.

From memory, there's actually quite an extensive
theoretical literature about the 'veil' and its
cultural significance. You're quite correct that
such perspectives rarely find their way into popular
discussions about the burqa etc.

I read this book when it came out about 10 years ago, and
found it very enlightening about these issues, at least as they
pertain to Arab Muslims. Of course, the burka is worn by
various non-Arab ethnic groups:

**Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society,
[Paperback]
Lila Abu-Lughod**

Review:

"A fascinating, fresh interpretation of the mechanics of the twin codes of Bedouin behavior: the 'code of honor' against which 'real men' are tested and the 'code of modesty' which [Abu-Lughod] sees as a means for those falling short of 'real manhood,' whether men or women, to attain moral worth. The argument is compelling--it makes sense of honor killings, the veiling of women and a seemingly excessive sexual modesty. There is a certain excitement here, as the pieces of the puzzle fall into place." -- Inea Bushnaq, New York Times Book Review

http://www.amazon.com/Veiled-Sentiments-Poetry-Bedouin-Society/dp/0520224736

The Bibliography is particularly useful.
Posted by talisman, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 11:30:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that may be a generalization too far, JanF.

>>Face hiding is generally an expression of shame across cultures - a kind of existential denial of one's existence out of a sense of unworthiness.<<

Equally, it could be an expression of modesty and privacy - a kind of existential affirmation of the right to the mystery of your individuality.

A case may be made for it to be, rather than "this most extreme form of loss of the self and loss of individuality", an extreme form of preservation of individuality.

Think of it this way.

Many "western women" have a problem with body image.

"All research to date on body image shows that women are much more critical of their appearance than men – much less likely to admire what they see in the mirror. Up to 8 out of 10 women will be dissatisfied with their reflection"

http://www.sirc.org/publik/mirror.html

What more effective way can there be than top-to-toe covering, to remove this from the equation, and enable you to feel super-comfortable in your anonymity.

I don't necessarily believe this holds in every case, but I offer it as a perfectly feasible and credible alternative.

Oh yes, Dan S de Merengue.

Here beginneth today's lesson.

>>By the way, if you reach for your dictionary, you’ll see that you are wrong. Expediential is a real word.<<

You are absolutely right.

I was completely wrong on this - my only excuse being that it did not appear in any spellchecker. It does however feature in the full OED, so you were perfectly correct to point it out.

Now it's your turn.

>>I gave my opinion over the authorised spelling of a word. It has since been corrected.<<

This opinion is not the relevant one.

It was your assertion - your insistence, in fact - that "exponential is a particular case of expodential" and "expodential is an acceptable term with the mathematical function" that is the issue here.

And no amount of ducking and weaving will get you off that hook.

Own up.

Then ask yourself, "what does this say about me?"
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 11:51:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JanF - Re the "gross comment" by? That's the problem-people make sexist remarks that are gross,then plead a sense of humour. It's not far from thoughts to words to actions.
As for attractive or unattractive faces of women. In our society,too much emphasis is placed on appearance,particularly that of women. Whether we're politicians,athlets, CEO's or? the skills or points of view are secondary - look at the media during the Federal Election campaign?You only have to listen to people who have a child with a disability for example-some stories are horrific - told,that they should've had an abortion; keep "it" off the streets etc.I'm always shocked and saddened by this. Can only imagine how kids and parents feel?
I believe,that the reason for covering hair or full face is to be treated as a person,not by how they look. Of course,fundamentalists go much further,but that's how I've heard young Australian women,who've converted to Islam explain. It doesn't faze me at all - in fact I admire them, particularly in the summer time.
I've heard Malalai Joya and other women in Afghanistan say,they use the 'law' to their advantage - they hide school books,video cameras and CD's under their burqa-she hates it, but smart women make it work for them?
Posted by Liz45, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 12:00:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What we seem to be talking about here, CHERFUL, is the boundary between socially acceptable behaviours, and unlawful activity.

>>The laws they would use to prosecute them would be wearing an outfit in public so as to cause fear or for being a public nuisance.<<

"Being a public nuisance" covers a wide range of behaviours. I doubt you would consider a veiled woman a public nuisance, per se, would you? On what grounds?

The bin Laden mask-wearer was let off with a warning:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Yorkshire-Osama-Bin-Laden-mask.6651136.jp

"...wearing the mask while driving may have caused 'alarm or distress' to members of the public."

What "alarm and distress" is caused by a woman in a veil?

>>So no, I don’t agree with you that there is no law against wearing these outfits. It must be concluded that if tested to the extreme there would be a law used to stop it.<<

Ok, so how do you suggest such a law is phrased? Widely enough to cover bin Laden masks, swastikas, black-and-white minstrel costumes etc? Or narrowly, just to target women wearing veils across their face? Or even more narrowly, to Muslim women who are oppressed by their husbands?

We already have far too many laws. Inventing reasons to introduce even more will eventually bring the whole system into disrepute.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 12:06:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Talisman, "Veiled sentiments" sounds interesting and worth a read, given how current and contemporary the issue of veil wearing is.

Having had recent exposure to Bedouin culture, it seems strong yes and hierarchical - a society that still practices black slavery and where white men rule with a sense of their own innate and god given superiority.

While I have been corrected by Pericles, I feel there is not a great deal of distance between a display of one's sense of unworthiness and a display of modesty or humility. Rather they are closely aligned.

That said, the display of a particular quality can often be far removed from its practice and done for less admirable motives. Hiding one's face allows wider scope both for misrepresentation of one's self and for underhanded activities, as noted by Liz45.

I don't buy veil wearing as a solution for women's problems with body image. Nor do I feel that underhandedness is the best way to empower women. Respect and tolerance, and displays of popular culture that use images of real people, honestly represented might help.

Dear Liz45, how miserable life would be without a little humour and without the ability to laught at ourselves occasionally - a capacity probably born of genuine humility.
Posted by JanF, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 3:12:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your opinion re women who WANT to wear the burqa is any more relevant than mine. I did not say that the women were doing "underhanded" things? Where did you get that from?
I refuse to laugh at racist, sexist or ageist jokes! If you think that's being devoid of having a sense of humour, I don't care. These types of jokes like the one referred to hurt people - I don't intend extending that hurt any further - my choice!
The women in Aust who wear the burqa are less that .01 of the population - what is going on? Ridiculous! If people are concerned about human rights, go and read about the women of Afghanistan or go to Amnesty International - for the real truth, not rubbish to steer the focus of what Australia is responsible for in Islamic countries!
Posted by Liz45, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 3:54:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For liberation, women must demand the right to wear burqas, eh Liz45? Or at least that is what the radical feminists and socialist left believe.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 7:46:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PERICLES <Being a public nuisance covers a wide range of behaviours, I doubt you would consider a veiled woman a public nuisance per se would you . On what grounds?

The fact that we have never ending debates on this subject already shows that there is quite a lot of public unease when confronted by women wearing the burqa. I was asking what is the difference between this sort of unease and the unease caused by people dressed in white Klu Klux Klan robes wandering around in public places or sitting drinking coffee in cafes etc. they really are not being a public nuisance if they are just dressed inappropriately and not causing any harm. However the law would be used to stop them if they persisted.

Considering we are at war with countries and people that wear this uniform(costume)after our major allies were attacked with vicious force
on home soil ,I cannot see the difference in the unease felt about people wearing swastikas and white KKK robes in our public places and the unease surrounding the wearing of the Burqa.
Posted by CHERFUL, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 7:57:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@CORNFLOWER - For god's sake read! I may not like your choice of clothes, but I have no right to dictate what you wear! It's not rocket science! If you're a woman, it was feminists who helped give you the life you're living now, but there are plenty of women in the world who aren't so lucky - they're either in a war zone, such as Iraq or Afghanistan; are one of 20 million slaves; or one of women who walk 200 million miles each day in order to have water, or are forced to be prostitutes; have babies, have terminations, are raped and/or murdered, or are forced to sell their kids due to poverty, and are one of the millions who live on less than $2 a day.
The struggle is not over yet, in fact, it hasn't really begun!
The women in Afghanistan will not be freed if they're not forced to wear the burqa - that would only be the beginning!
Depleted uranium bombs, land mines, cluster and phosphorus bombs are far more important an issue than the .01% of women who wear the burqa in Australia.
Posted by Liz45, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 10:16:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
liz45

I agree with you that the crimes and atrocities against women around the world are many and seemingly insurmountable. That must change for a start if we want any kind of lack of poverty, less depletion of the environment, or numerous wars to become much less.

As it has been observed when you only educate boys in society nothing changes for the better, but when you educate girls the whole of society changes for the better.

It must also be observed that whenever or wherever in history women have been forced to wear cumberson garments to cover up their femaleness they have had very little equality or rights. By comparison in the West where they don't hide their femaleness they have more equality and protection from the law than anywhere else on earth. There would seem to be some correlation between the two.

You speak of the hardships faced by women in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is true, but the war in Iraq would have been over years ago if not for the murderous tribal warfare going on between the different groups over there and also the Al Qaeda operatives who don't want to see peace succeed in that country and so regularly blow up waterpipes and electricity lines thus causing so much of the hardship.

America also insisted on the women being allowed to vote in the elections in Iraq although a lot of the men still insisted that their wives had to vote the same way they did.

Western countries have many failings but they are still streets ahead in their model of laws and freedoms for women. By no means perfect, but still pretty great.
Posted by CHERFUL, Tuesday, 7 December 2010 11:52:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I saw an interesting BBC debate a few months ago when overseas.
The debate was about France's proposed anti-burqua laws.

What was interesting was that of all the Muslim women in France, only a few hundred of them wear the burqua.

Of those, 85% were recent converts to Islam and therefore adopted the practice voluntarily.

Therefore, the new laws were targetted at a very tiny percentage of the population -hardly a social crisis - and only in response to contrived media hysteria and a grab for Conservative political populism.

Meanwhile, it's perfectly legal for me to wear a wig, a hat, a false beard and dark glasses whenever I am in public - without fear of any form of prosecution - and hey, what's really under those bulky Santa suits anyway?
Posted by rache, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 1:19:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is simply illogical, CHERFUL.

>>The fact that we have never ending debates on this subject already shows that there is quite a lot of public unease when confronted by women wearing the burqa.<<

One person can hold up one end of a "debate" for ever and a day, if they choose to stand their ground. That does not indicate anything more than there is one person with determination to hold onto a point of view - it is certainly not an indication of "quite a lot of public unease".

>>what is the difference between this sort of unease and the unease caused by people dressed in white Klu Klux Klan robes wandering around in public place<<

The KKK has a history of violence against black people. Veiled Muslim women do not have a similar history. Therefore the only possible reason for your unease is that you suspect they may be terrorists in disguise, would that be right?

Ask yourself, is this a valid reason to pass a law that further restricts our individual freedoms? Given the thousands of other opportunities that potential terrorists have to effect a disguise, you have to ask yourself "where will it end?"

And you are still refusing to address the underlying legal issue:

>>However the law would be used to stop them if they persisted<<

Which law?

There isn't a law that bans dressing up in Ku Klux Klan outfits, or wearing of SS uniform, or appearing in public as a Black-and-White Minstrel. So why make a specific crime out of the wearing of the burqa? In what way is it so substantially more offensive than wearing white robes and a pointy white hood with eyeholes?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 7:42:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In so far as someone is moving around in public wearing an impenetrable disguise that disturbs others and makes them feel uneasy and unsafe, burqua wearing in my view represents not only a public nuisance but a malicious attempt to disguise themselves and incite unrest.

Interested about the remarks about the 85% in France being recent converts. This is the sense I had - having seen various women locally in this garb who appeared to be Westerners. Clearly cultural beliefs and practice deeply imbued from childhood are not at play here. Rather these appear to be trouble makers who choose to exist on the fringes of society for whatever bizarre personal and political reasons. I feel that given a choice most women from this cultural background, unless deeply oppressed by men in her extended family, would not wear the damn things.

There are complex issues here, where the oppressed often appear complicit with the perpetrators (as with hostages) however these actions are not by their own free will, rather a desperate strategy to ensure their own personal and physical saftey from perpetrators of oppression.
Posted by JanF, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 7:44:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45,

You avoided the question. Do you believe as radical feminists and some of the socialist left do, that women must demand the right to wear burqas? They say that demanding the right to wear the burqa is 'essential' to liberation.

World-wide, there is consensus that the burqa is a potent, enduring symbol of subjugation and violence affecting both women and men ('men' don't benefit, a few religious zealots do) and as such is an affront to our core beliefs and values.

While I don't support a ban - why give extremists oxygen and a cause celebre - the burqa should not be encouraged and government agencies, business and the public generally should not be forced to make concessions for it.


rache, "of all the Muslim women in France, only a few hundred of them wear the burqua. Of those, 85% were recent converts to Islam and therefore adopted the practice voluntarily."

It is a mistake to believe that fundamentalism is restricted to men.

The worry is what children they raise because in modern times the radicalism that is so often blamed on Muslim migrants is in fact 'home grown' and the offenders are not of Muslim cultural background at all.

<In the 9/11 world and in the immediate aftermath, the theory was and the reality was that a terrorist attack, if it were to occur again on U.S. soil, would be someone coming from abroad and coming in to the United States," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. "That paradigm has changed, and there are now individuals in the United States, some who have grown up here and are American citizens. ... They haven't done anything to violate the law, but yet they have become radicalized to the point of violent extremism and to the point of ... considering coming back to the homeland and conducting an attack of some sort.">

from CNN Justice Report May 11, 2010
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-11/justice/vinas.cruickshank.analysis_1_qaeda-pakistani-taliban-terrorist?_s=PM:CRIME
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 7:48:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further to that, I referred in my previous message to the tiny minority living in France (and other Western countries) who wear the burqua for cultural reasons. However on the whole it appears to be a wilful display intended to stir up unrest, by people whose mentality is such that they do not understand the implications of their actions. Like David Hicks who until apprehended appeared to be living life as if it was a bizarre adventure fantasy disconnected from reality, without considering the implications for himself, his family or his own country.

For some to wear the burqua could be a symptom of a social malaise and or alienation. Many appear to be taking a stand against Western values and consumerism - like those who demonstrate at G20 and World Trade organisation meetings. While there is some foundation for opposing consumerism and corruption that creates havoc to the environment and disadvantaged communities, I doubt burqua wearers fully understand (given their Western enculturation) the oppression this bizarre practice represents. Perhaps they are seeking to withdraw from Western societyby this gesture; although we can all reduce consumerism and live simpler lives without having to wear disguises.

Also, lateral I know, regarding opponents of free trade and economic liberalism, I doubt they have anything constructive to offer in their place, given how far global trade and foreign relations has gone down this path amongst all developed countries, wherby the functioning of these systems and the participating economies depend on it.

To step back from market based principles and consumerism now could invite economic collapse on a global scale, which may be on the cards anyway. For those who survive, this may present an opportunity to build a fairer system out of the ruins although I doubt that what amounts to a bizarre fashion statement representing extremist political ideals (as with punk rock, death metal etc), will make a jot of difference to how things turn out; nor will it contribute to making the world a better place, on the contrary.
Posted by JanF, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 8:55:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spelling Wars, episode 17 of the ultimate saga.

For all those who’ve contributed to a thoroughly intriguing discussion on dress codes, law and liberties, I apologies for contributing to what is so tangential to the discussion at hand. (As many reach for their dictionaries, let’s hope and pray that tangential was spelt correctly).

Dear Pericles,
Thank-you for your scrutiny of my posts. I welcome it. By analysing and correcting each other we all advance, which is, I think, the function and purpose of this website.

We have come to the conclusion that exponential is spelled correctly with an N in the middle, and never a D.

For any other statements of mine containing the word exponential, but spelled with a D, those statements were made in error. The exceptional case of the exponential function which derivates onto itself should be spelled with an N. And likewise, in its entirety, the more general family of exponential functions must also be spelled with Ns in the authorised spelling.

I made those statements in good faith, thinking at the time that they were correct. This is otherwise known as “offering your opinion”, which is what we do on this website.

On deeper investigation, I noticed that all other occasions where exponential was spelled with a D (including those engaged in fairly high level mathematics) were in rather informal discussions, where people were not particularly concerned to conform to authorised spelling, but were only otherwise engaged in communicative endeavour.

As for my comment about what I remember being taught in school, I hope that I haven’t brought my high school into disrepute. In their defence, I would add that they emphasised the practical aspects of maths, and tried to teach us the proper use and manipulation of numbers and their appropriate algebraic symbols. Rarely or ever did our maths teachers test us in prosaic writing or for our spelling capacities.

Several times you’ve asked, “What does this say about me?” I would hope it says I want to be swayed by good argument, and not just go with the crowd.

Thanks again.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 10:14:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty,
You accuse me of being aloof. Here’s a tip for you: If you don’t like the tone of my writing, then don’t bother reading it.

It’s apparent (by your own admission) that what is getting your goat is that my writing might have some persuasive aspect to it that is in difference to your own worldview, or might be challenging to your perspective.

What is clear to anyone reading this thread, or even your last few posts, is that you don’t like me. It seems that the only reason you have joined with this discussion is to badmouth me. Was there any other reason?

As I said to Pericles, I welcome anyone to scrutinise my posts or anyone else’s. For that is how we progress here.

So scrutinise what I say. But don’t make up stuff about what I haven’t said.

Recently, you have made some vague allegation(s) against me (I don’t even know what), for which it is apparent you cannot substantiate or even reference when challenged.

If I am ‘aloof’, that is no reason to call me a liar. If my son makes a spelling error tonight when he’s doing his homework, I do not degrade him by calling him a liar (not unless I want him to treat me cruelly when I ‘m old).

If Pericles makes an error by saying that expediential is not a real dictionary word, we don’t call him a liar. It’s just an honest mistake.

Understand?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 10:25:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Generally in such forums there are rules about sticking to the topic rather than making personal references. Spelling and conceptual errors are widespread and need to be tolerated and forgiven.

While it can be helpful to understand the values and motives that cause people to take up certain positions - to know who is speaking - the cues are restricted when one has not met a person in the flesh and does not know their background.

It seems preferable therefore when participating to reserve making harsh judgements about a person's character in the absence of proof.
Posted by JanF, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 10:35:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PERICLES-<However the the law would be used to stop them if they persisted. Which Law?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or did you just not read my post fully when I detailed what law would be used against them.

Again I never said it was more offensive than wearing the KKKoutfits or the German uniforms in public areas. I said it created the same unease and for the same reasons.

<Veiled Muslim women do not have a history of violence.>
There have been cases of suicide women bombers wearing those robes although as you say they don’t have a history of it. It is the violence and oppression symbolised by the garment itself more so than the women who wear it that makes people regard it with distrust. Men who commit violence and terrorist acts against the West in the name of the Islamic religion who have caused the garment to be associated with violence.
Posted by CHERFUL, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 9:11:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan, Here's a tip. Stop lying and you won't need checking, persuasive or not.

I baited you deliberately, as an example of what might occur if we all acted like you. *annoying*, isn't it?

I do not believe your assertions were offered in good faith.

To help your memory:

"I believe that exponential is a particular case of expodential, which is the more general term." 1st dec

Your "belief" was in error. For this one, yes, apology accepted.

Sadly you then go on more egregiously, to deliberately spin lies...

"Expodential is an acceptable term with the mathematical function that is often associated with population growth modelling. It was the word that I was taught in school when learning about geometric series. That the word exponential is the current term in vogue these days when raising a base number to a power is possibly due to the Americanisation of English. " 2nd dec

Is not and never has been. *this*, as opposed to the typo, *and* the mistaken (alleged) belief, is a lie, Dan.

To compound it you elaborate:

"This usage is now more fashionable, though the term expodential is acceptable for the wider family of functions." also second dec

Nope. Never was. You made that up.

To answer dictionary owners you attempt to add more cachet to your deliberate lie:

"It’s a phonological mutant. It won’t be found in a standard dictionary. Yet some who have mastered mathematical concepts beyond that which I ever did do occasionally use it in discussions, such as in this exchange:..." Also 2nd dec.

It won't be found in *any* dictionary.

Caught out, Dan.

You are a liar. The typo is not what made you a liar. The initial "belief" that it might be a term reflects that your knowledge of mathematical nomeclature is poor despite having studied some (see 09sept2010). The lie is contained in your repeated attempts to justify this in the face of informed correction.

If your child does a bad thing, will it be ok if he tells a fib to hide it? will your "god" think so?

Get over yourself.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 8 December 2010 10:40:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not at all, CHERFUL.

>>Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or did you just not read my post fully when I detailed what law would be used against them.<<

As I recall, you said:

>>The laws they would use to prosecute them would be wearing an outfit in public so as to cause fear or for being a public nuisance<<

That being the case, why would you not rely on exactly the same laws to address veiled women, rather than introduce a law that specifically targets them as individuals?

>>Again I never said it was more offensive than wearing the KKKoutfits or the German uniforms in public areas. I said it created the same unease and for the same reasons<<

All the more reason to use precisely the same laws for one as for the other, surely?

>>Men who commit violence and terrorist acts against the West in the name of the Islamic religion who have caused the garment to be associated with violence.<<

I don't accept that more than a tiny minority of people actually associate "the garment" with violence. In absolute and direct contrast to your other examples, Ku Klux Klan robes and Nazi uniforms.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 9 December 2010 7:24:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower - I believe that all women MUST have the right to wear what they wish. I fully acknowledge the horrific attitudes to women in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia etc, but this topic relates to women in AUSTRALIA, not the Middle East. Feminists believe in equality and justice. Why aren't men who wear long 'dresses' turbans etc, particularly if they have a full beard and wear sunnies included? I can't see the difference, except the argument pushed by politicians & others, which is racist,illogical and lacks justice.
When we are adults and have the right to make decisions, that includes making bad or anti-social or?ones. I'd think that young adolescent boys wearing hoodies may have a worse reputation of committing crimes, than women wearing burqas. As I said, probably less than .01 of the population, if that!
It's a misogynist suggestion that is in opposition to what they attest. Alcohol fueled young blokes commit violence on our streets every weekend, do we ban alcohol, or do we leave it to the police to enforce the law?
I lighten my hair colour. Some people do it to change their appearance after they commit a crime - do we ban all hair colour products? This is a madness, and quite frankly,I'm surprised it's still going. We have sexual assaults, violence, equal pay issues in this country to change, and on a world stage, slave trade, sexual slaves, poverty, unemployment, maternal deaths, HIV/AIDS and the elimination of violence via all wars,but firstly those that this country is engaged in. If we really care about women and girls welfare,we'd eliminate all forms of sexual and physical violence - first! Then we'd change the system so it didn't depend on the majority having nothing or less - eliminate poverty.
Burqas are not top of my list,and I'm sure not Afghani women either-it's the underlying violence that makes the assertion that they want changed - soon! We could get out of their country - NOW!
Posted by Liz45, Thursday, 9 December 2010 10:57:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45,

You were asked, "Do you believe as radical feminists and some of the socialist left do, that women must demand the right to wear burqas? They say that demanding the right to wear the burqa is 'essential' to liberation."

I take it your answers are 'yes' and 'yes' to the above.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 9 December 2010 11:13:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45 and Cornflower

Liz45 has a point - for a woman who is not "liberated" having another person, in particular a controlling male telling her how to be liberated and what to do, even were she to go through all the right motions would not find true liberation in an existential sense - she would not have experienced liberation in her own heart.

That perspective would support burqua wearing for cultural reasons, and by default due to an inability to prove the difference, would include those who wear it for political reasons - even though their behaviour might be represent a form of treason, as with David Hicks.

Wearing of the burqua is a small and specific issue, as Liz45 so rightly observes; and many bigger issues are at stake globally for all who face oppression and disadvantage in their many forms. Wearing or not wearing the burqua will neither liberate nor subjugate anyone on its own and is not a major issue.

So while I recognise there may be minor issues of empowerment at stake I still feel it is entirely ridiculous and out of place in modern society and it's use should be discouraged by governments as far as possible.

In circumstances where clear vision and visibility of the wearer is needed - such as boarding planes, driving cars, public places - burqua wearing should not be allowed out of respect for public safety. This is entirely consistent with the current security paranoia of Western governments.

Should a minority wish to exercise their right to wear the burqua, they could do so provided they wear it within the law by avoiding the places and activities where it is not appropriate.

As with Howard government rhetoric, which went too far and which I do not necessarily support, those who wish to exercise their rights to wear what they choose also carry responsibilities to others. The burqua should not be singled out. This also goes for wearers of hoodies and other disguises. The main issues are not about respecting cultural difference, they are public safety and a need for accountability.
Posted by JanF, Thursday, 9 December 2010 11:57:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JanF

I don't believe that banning garb changes the wearer's attitudes or the offensive and divisive ideology it is being used to represent, regardless of whether that is a KKK gown, swastika or the equally hideous, confronting shroud called the burqa.

I think I have made my position clear in that while I wouldn't ban the burqa and I have given reasons for that, including that it would provide troublemakers with a cause celebre, it is inappropriate to require the Australian population, business or government to make concessions for its use. You mentioned hoodies, which is a silly example in that it only concerns ID. However, just taking that example, it is expected that such wearers to remove the identity concealing hood when in banks and authorised persons can ask for the hood to be removed in public areas, in shopping centres or at a public gathering such as a concert.

Liz45 has indicated where she is coming from, but do you similarly believe as radical feminists and some of the socialist left do, that women must demand the right to wear burqas and that demanding the right to wear the burqa is 'essential' to liberation? If so, you are welcome to your opinion. It intrigues me as crooked thinking that is all.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 9 December 2010 3:56:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nah, I don't agree with it Cornflower, I was just saying it's a valid point but too minor to make a difference in this one instance.

Much as I dislike the practice and disagree with it, I don't think the burqua should be banned nor discouraged per se.

I'm with you that the wearer needs to comply with common sense requirements not to wear a full head covering where to wear it risks public safety and may support criminal activity.

Within the context of common sense requirements the wearer ought not then feel that their chosen cultural or political practice is being targeted and that they are being denied their free choice.

In present day society many personal freedoms have been sacrificed for the common good in the name of national security and while people don't like it, due to the legislation that covers these things people have no right to complain and just have to go along with being x-rayed, prodded and searched. Being required to remove a head covering ought to be part and parcel of this.
Posted by JanF, Thursday, 9 December 2010 4:09:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JanF

Thank you, agreed.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 9 December 2010 4:20:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spelling Wars - episode 20, the Saga Continues, (apologies to the central debate)

Rusty,
Are you accusing Pericles of being a liar for making a spelling error? I would hope not! 

This is despite what he said being verifiably incorrect.  

Pericles argued that expediential was not a real word. His reasoning was that the word did not appear in his spellchecker. 

Putting foward an argument in good faith which is later shown to be incorrect is not telling a lie.

Putting it a different way, your accusation of lies is about as sensible as saying that since Victorians elected a Labour (oops, spelling error) Labor government ten years ago, and now recently they have changed their minds and elected the Liberals, then Victorians are liars.

Not so, they have simply changed their opinion. At one point they believed something to be true, later they believed something different. 

I and everyone else here have put forward our opinions in good faith. Please, analyse what I and everyone says, and put a counter opinion if you like. Certainly, my ideas regarding the spelling of certain words needed correcting. Such a correction would be called 'fair comment'.

And some of what you've said about me is true. I did study tertiary level maths years ago, but I've never claimed to be an authority on maths or anything else. It's many years since I've had a maths book in the house. And my maths spelling is (apparently) not strong. That's partly because we studied maths by doing it rather than writing prosaically about it.  

However, name calling (liar) is more akin to personal abuse than constructive or fair comment.          
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 10 December 2010 10:14:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Do learn to read.

I am accusing you of lying about the validity of the word "expodential".

It *was* a typo. You *may* have "believed" it to be a word through ancient mishearing, I allow you that. It was the obviously self-serving attempt to make it seem more than that in the face of informed correction. To remind you again: "acceptable term" and "learned at school". Nope. Never was. You might have "believed" that, but since a welter of people who use maths questioned this, it was then upon you to actually check your facts. Instead you kept trying to bluff your way. At any point, if anybody had accepted your bluff, they would have "believed" something not true. No doubt this suits you.

Everything since the actual correction has been in relation to your attempts to lie about it, which was not in good faith as you had good reason to check it. Others here use maths frequently in complex tasks, myself in the analysis of biochemical events. Getting a rasberry is a *strong* signal to go check, not to reflexively attempt a snow job about the acceptability of the error.

It is amusing to watch schoolkids try to justify how they did everything correct in arriving at wrong answers. Contemptible in an adult who claims teaching experience, education in pure and applied mathematics and a philosophy degree.

And it still continues in your repeated deliberate attempts to mispercieve the offence.

What makes you think the results of elections are the same class of information as maths terminology? You had flimsy or no basis for your "belief" about "expodential", such beliefs are not due the same respect as well-grounded, considered "beliefs" let alone comprehensive knowledge of the topic.

How many *other* false beliefs do you have that are similarly spurious?

This most recent exchange, and that in which you tried similar chicanery to defend the use of a cherry-picked quote to misrepresent the clear views of a well-known scientist, cement for me the conclusion that you do not argue in good faith.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 10 December 2010 11:29:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are other issues in relation to rights etc that are more important than this one. What about refusing medical services to people who continue to smoke - I don't agree with this, but a discussion is a good thing?Or, as we now know how dangerous the sun is particularly for young people and melanoma, which is often fatal, do we bring in laws that prevent people from sunbaking, after all, any change in skin colour has been proven to be dangerous. What is it about our society,where young women feel, that having a tan is attractive? I think we should look at the attitudes of the west re women and girls - it's pretty atrocious in my view - too much emphasis on looks etc even when women are pregnant and after the birth of their child - it's ludicrous and destructive!

There are other issues re young women such as anorexia nervosa, far more important than this. I've never heard Fred Nile or Senator Bernadino? air concern over these issues. In fact, I don't hear them doing much work at all. Who can remember the last time either of them went in to bat for sole parents,for example, who are mostly women.Or how women suffer the most out of WorkChoices, poverty and unemployment? Just Muslim bashing is their motivation. Fred Nile (Mr do-nothing in parliament)has made some pretty damning and outrageous attitudes towards the Islamic faith, and Senator Bern.is a staunch catholic!
I've noticed that women wearing a hijab are not too keen making eye contact, and who can blame them? I go out of my way to smile at women from the middle east,and/or talk to their kids/babies as I know too many have suffered discrimination,even violence from 'westerners'.I've heard of some having their hijab torn from their heads for example, which is assault. shameful stuff!
Posted by Liz45, Friday, 10 December 2010 11:49:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for once again leaping to my defence, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Are you accusing Pericles of being a liar for making a spelling error? I would hope not!<<

I am most grateful. Especially for the exclamation mark. Most persuasive.

But I think you may have missed the point once more.

>>Pericles argued that expediential was not a real word. His reasoning was that the word did not appear in his spellchecker. Putting foward an argument in good faith which is later shown to be incorrect is not telling a lie.<<

So true. So true. Which is why I acknowledged the error - as well as the source of my error - immediately I became aware of it. Not that the spellchecker was an excuse, you understand. More an admission that my lack of research had been my shortcoming.

Had I, on the other hand, insisted that your admonition was misplaced, and had instead invented a rationale that purported to prove my point, that would have been, clearly, the creation of an untruth. I could have claimed that it was an archaism, for example.

Had I then, when challenged a second time, still insisted that I was correct, and built another invention on top of the first one, you might be justified in terming that action, "compounding the lie". Perhaps I would have cited my old Latin master, who had specifically commanded me to abjure its use.

But I didn't.

Is that starting to make it all a little clearer?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 10 December 2010 12:52:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've had this sub-thread brought to my attention. It's not helping any of you to prove your point by throwing around the term "liar". And I would have thought the argument is over. "Expedential" has 825 entries on Google, and most of those are directing you towards "exponential" as the correct term. "Exponential" has 28,400,000 results. QED.

Anyway, it is completely off-topic, which is about the burqa. Next person to post on the "expedential" controversy is going to get sin-binned.

Graham (Moderator)
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 10 December 2010 4:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Graham: hopefully some sense of adult maturity can be restored.

Re the position of women in some societies, and thereby the burqa:

This may be a much more complex issue than most of us think. Perhaps it may help if we consider it from the angle that, as part of the marriage rules of patriarchal societies (most peasant societies, Rome and Greece, Muslim societies, most traditional Aboriginal societies) families must, on the one hand, perpetuate themselves by having children to inherit the family/clan land - but on the other, they need women from outside the family in order to produce the next generation of children, preferably sons.

These 'immigrants' are therefore traded from one group to the other (in fact, the trade itself is a means of establishing and maintaining good relations between the men of different groups). Once they have served their purpose of incubation and suckling the next generation of boys, their duties are confined to house- or farm-work, and keeping the daughters in line, raising them to be properly subservient to whichever male is, or will be, dominating them.

In the meantime, the mothers remain 'immigrants', never being part of the family that they marry into and provide sons for, or having any rights to the land they must spend their lives on - in fact, in the case of Aboriginal women, they may still have ritual obligations to part or parts of their own family or clan's land (hence 'women's 'secret' 'business' ').

TBC
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 12 December 2010 3:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[cont.]

Is it possible then, that in some societies, women are not seen as attractive and desirable per se, as in most Western societies, but are mistrusted, and even found repugnant, useful only for breeding and/or the humdrum work around the house and farm ? As such, those societies perceive that women must be kept under control, confined to the house if possible, but dressed in certain ways to mark them off as somebody's possession ?

Is it common for Muslim men never to have seen the bodies of their wives, or even their faces ? It would not be necessary to do so, if all they were needed for was to procreate and produce the next lot of sons. But it would be necessary, to ensure that the husband was surely the father of any children produced, to keep a tight rein on such women, to police their relationships, to enforce gender-segregation rules on both wives and daughters. Restrictive clothing might go some way to achieving this purpose.

So, in order to live in such an environment, women may have no choice but to comply by wearing restrictive clothing. They may even pre-empt the suspicions of husbands by wearing clothing which is MORE restrictive than their husbands expect.

So let's not add to their oppression by blaming them for their position :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 12 December 2010 3:48:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's not that long that there was a very patriarchal attitude in this country re Anglo-saxon male/female relationships. I can remember when women had to resign from the Commonwealth Public Service on marriage. You could relieve for hols etc,but no longer a permanent employee. That didn't change until about the 1970's.When I worked as a Teachers Aide with NSW govt, we didn't have access to Super. The divorce/financial settlements etc were so sexist-women's contribution was not valued, only money was treated as important. No laws about rape in marriage?Police wouldn't intervene in violence of women by their husbands.
The Catholic Church's attitude to contraception caused much damage, health issues and death to too many women - it's only just taken a small step re HIV/AIDS prevention.
The Anglican Church doesn't have any women in any positions of power or shared decision making re their funds etc. There's still a lot of areas where discrimination is alive and well.
The overwhelming majority of people who are discriminated against in the workforce are women.
Just because we don't have an item of clothing etc doesn't mean that the sexes are equal. Women still have to work 65 days per year more than a man in order to receive the same pay, for doing the same or similar work. The list goes on!
I find it quite amazing,that having troops in Afghanistan has not protected the women and girls from horrific violence. What the hell are we protecting or 'fighting' for? Only on yesterday's news was the report of girls still being traded between war lords, families/male etc.In fact,the war lords who use oppression against women and girls, are in the Karzai govt, committing murder and torture! Why are we there if we can't impose justice for innocent civilians?
The stats for child suvival, education and justice are getting worse not better. We're only causing more trauma - after 9+ years!
Don't hear Senator Bernadino insisting on their protection! He couldn't give a toss!His interest is racist and anti-Muslim! Not interested in human rights of women!
Posted by Liz45, Sunday, 12 December 2010 4:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Liz .....

Are you suggesting that the position of women in Afghanistan would be better if we pulled our troops out and gave it over to the Taliban ? What do you think might happen to all those women who have ventured out of their homes, worked alongside men, gone to school, voted, cast off the burqa for the gown and hijab ? Do you seriously think they will actually survive ? How soon before we see film of women being strung up by front-end loaders, and hanging from the soccer goalposts again ?

Terrible choices: The Yanks/us/Karzai or the Taliban/al Qa'ida ! There are not too many heroes in that lot. Yet we have to make choices, all the same. It's a dirty-hands world, Liz.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 12 December 2010 4:32:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Why are we there if we can't impose justice for innocent civilians?>>
Surely that's putting the cart before the horse?
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 12 December 2010 5:32:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We're on a roll:
"Spanish city of Lleida bans burqas in public buildings"
http://europenews.dk/en/node/38106
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 12 December 2010 5:52:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Read 'Raising My Voice' by Malalai Joya if you really want to know what's happening to the women of Afghanistan. go to a website, www.rawa.org and you'll see,that we aren't protecting the women of Afghanistan at all, in fact, we've made their position worse - the Karzai Govt with the US stooge as president, has members of the Taliban,war lords and thugs left behind from Russia in his parliament.The US states that his govt is corrupt,and the whole administration is like the mafia.One of Karzai's brothers is in the Opium trade,another has stolen millions meant for the people, most who live on less than $2 a day. The war lords in his govt are still killing like they did during the civil war. Only yesterday on the ABC news it stated how girls are being sold off as pay offs.
Australia recently trained militia who have links to a man in Afghanistan who's running criminal gangs, stealing and killing people on the road - the US and NATO forces know -what do they do - nothing?
Put Malalai Joya into your search engine and you'll be able to read and/or listen to what the real truth is.
Just because you choose to believe the rubbish, doesn't make any difference to the truth.
There are war criminals in the govt;there are war criminals who the US have allowed to live in the US. The US?NATO are only interested in the oil & gas in the Caspian Sea,and the pipeline that will channel it through Afghanistan to the West!
Posted by Liz45, Sunday, 12 December 2010 9:49:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont). If the US with its 30,000 troops turns a blind eye to the lawlessness and corruption, what the hell are Australians doing there?We're allowing murder, rape and hideous violence in that country, because the people have never been the priority - same with Iraq!
Who's got the oil all sorted in Iraq? How much will the Iraqi people receive? I suggest not much to no money!

The Afghani people had nothing to do with 9/11. The alleged terrorists didn't come from there either, and when was the last time you heard anyone refer to wanting to get Osama bin Laden? If they wanted to, seriously, they wouldn't have let the bin Laden family leave the US the day after 9/11.With the US satellites and other toys, they can't track down one man? I think he's either dead,or they know where he is. The FBI website doesn't even have him on the wanted list for 9/11. Take a look!

We've been lied to! The rubbish reasons given were a smoke screen for the real motives - the US wants permanent bases in the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan, border with Iran/Pakistan! Iran is probably next! They have huge reserves of oil too! Then, the US will have pro America dictatorships, just where they want them! It's called empire building and a lust for OIL! Clever! We're the idiots! The innocents of Iraq & AFghanistan are the price they're willing to pay! I find it repugnant!
Wikileaks has revealed some of the truth re the US actions and motives - that's why some are screaming "assassination" for Julian Assange or calling him a terrorist. I know who the terrorists are and they speak English!
Posted by Liz45, Sunday, 12 December 2010 10:00:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What do your conspiracy theories have to do with whether or not
"Women should be free to wear the burqa"?
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 12 December 2010 10:22:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,

So we give it all over to the Taliban ? No ?

Your other option is ..... ?

It's a dirty world sometimes, Liz. Sometimes nobody is on the side of the angels, yet we still have to make choices.

So what do you recommend ? Afghanistan as a Taliban/al-Qa'ida/LeT sanctuary ?

I wonder what Marx would have thought of the Left supporting the Caliphate.

Just curious.

Of course, sometimes it's easier just to chuck a tanty :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 12 December 2010 10:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45:"Put Malalai Joya into your search engine and you'll be able to read and/or listen to what the real truth is."

Is this the same Liz who has no "inclination" to look at facts?

I do believe it is, so whatever is on that link is hardly likely to be worth anyone's time looking at.

Loudmouth:"sometimes it's easier just to chuck a tanty :)"

You've met Liz before, haven't you.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 13 December 2010 3:25:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LIZ45

"I go out of my way to smile at women from the middle east,and/or talk to their kids/babies as I know too many have suffered discrimination,even violence from 'westerners'.I've heard of some having their hijab torn from their heads for example, which is assault. shameful stuff!"

Good for you Liz...I do the same thing, but for different reasons.
I want to SAVE them from a religion which commands them to FIGHT all 'non them'..and a religion which permits husbands to BEAT their wives for alleged disobedience, and which permits an old man to 'marry' a prepubescent child, use her..then DIVORCE her...and which permits males in that religion to use captured women for sex objects...

THAT is why I am friendly to them.

It seems you just want to pander to the sense of victimhood and re-inforce those horrific values which are part of their holy book.

Can you come out in the open Liz and CONDEMN without reservation

-Spouse beating (4:28)
-Child sexual abuse (65:4)
-Incitement to violence against non them. (9:29)
-Sexual abuse of captive women (23:6)
-Hate Speech in the cursing of other religions. (9:30)

So Liz...can you ?
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 13 December 2010 7:37:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In relation to Liz's comments about oppression of women in Afghanistan.

It is not our country and we have no jurisdiction there.

Yes, our troops are there for a reason however it's naive and unrealistic to expect them to immediately resolve all injustices against women there.

These injustices arise from a culture and society that openly practices oppression of women and that would take time and patience to change.

Plans are afoot to address this, through introducing democratic processes, however flawed to begin with. Making education more widely available to the population will also help address these injustices, over time.
Posted by JanF, Monday, 13 December 2010 7:47:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ALGORE - We are assisting with the oppression of women in Afghanistan, otherwise what is the point of professing to be 'training the military or police' but turning a blind eye to the violence and murders. Are we acting according to the Geneva Conventions re Iraq & Afghanistan? Do you know what they are? Have you read them?
As to Islam etc. There were no crimes of rape re husbands and wives in NSW(and probably other states around the same time)until the 70's or 80's? Did you know that? One in 4 girls and one in 5 boys are sexually abused prior to reaching 18. The domestic violence rates have women as victims overwhelmingly. Just in the last 10 days or so, 15 males have committed horrific crimes of robbery with violence - could be more.
Not all men in Afghanistan are cruel vicious thugs, but too many who are sit in Karzai's parliament every day. Some are living with US sanction in that country, too many are known to the US but are allowed to keep on killing and causing terror, because that's how the US/NATO like it - while they're terrified, they're too distracted to stand up to them.
We have no reason to want to stamp out Islam due to the violent of some men in Afghanistan, any more than the fact, that it was descendants of catholic Ireland who viciously murdered Anita Cobby, or a bloke brought up in this country who was convicted of at least 7 backpacker murders.
Bush/Blair/Howard are all god botherers, who went to church on Sunday, in full knowledg, that under their instructions, murders, rapes, tortures, pollution from depleted uranium bombs etc were going on at the same time. I have no faith in so-called christians.
The catholic church has ridiculous laws re contraception and abortion,and yet remain silent about the killing of babies in Iraq and Afghanistan - what about all the women who lose their babies through stress and trauma, or due to lack of medical facilities, in contravention of the laws pertaining to occupiers! Hypocrisy I call it!
Posted by Liz45, Monday, 13 December 2010 11:44:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz, if you think I could be bothered reading that dense diatribe, you are mistaken.
Posted by JanF, Monday, 13 December 2010 1:18:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45...I read-no problem.

You_say:

"We have no reason to want to stamp out Islam due to the violent of some men in Afghanistan"

I have not the slightest hint of desire to stamp out Islam because of 'that'.

There are OTHER reasons.

3_major_reasons.

1/ CHAPTER 4:34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other,.....As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, BEAT them ; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (ILLEGAL ACT)

2/ CHAPTER 9:29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (SEDITION and WAR against Australia)

3/ CHAPTER 65:4 (Divorce)Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy. (CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE-prepubescent)

"Those who have NO courses/menstruation"

Abul Ala Maududi on that passage:

http://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem_quran/065.htm

QUOTE:
Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also pemssible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.
UNQUOTE

That is why I would like "Islam" banned, which includes the Burqa.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 13 December 2010 3:46:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well explained, ALGOREisRICH.
Posted by JanF, Monday, 13 December 2010 4:01:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Liz, would that there were alternatives:

* 'them'

* 'us'

* a vacuum,

but it is not to be. It's a dirty world.

So yours is a vote for the Taliban, then ?

Put yourself in the position of a woman in Afghanistan: REALLY, who would you rather live under ? Would you survive under the Taliban ?

Oh dear, I guess the world is full of useful idiots.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 13 December 2010 5:19:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Taliban militants beheaded a teacher in a central Afghan town while his wife and eight children watched, officials said Wednesday, describing the latest in a string of attacks targeting educators at schools where girls study."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-04-afghan-teacher_x.htm

Let's hear it for Liz45 and her support of the Taliban which somehow is connected to her feeling that the burqa is symbolic of liberation.
Posted by Proxy, Monday, 13 December 2010 6:53:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More good news on the burqa banning front:

"Switzerland: Federal committee recommends burqa ban in schools, offices"
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2010/12/switzerland-federal-committee.html

"Netherlands: 73% support a burqa ban"
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2010/12/netherlands-73-support-burqa-ban.html

and more related news which evidences a welcome trend:

"CR: 75% of Czechs oppose building mosques"
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2010/12/cr-75-of-czechs-oppose-building-mosques.html

The Europeans are finally waking up.

What will it take to awaken Australians from their slumber?
Posted by Proxy, Monday, 13 December 2010 7:59:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45

Malalai Joya has been quoted a number of times as saying that she wears the burqa because she is forced to and it is 'a shroud for the living'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3668254/Malalai-Joya-courage-under-fire.html
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 13 December 2010 10:39:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@JanF - Well, why are you having this discussion then? Go and water your plants, or?

@Cornflower - What have you read about Afghanistan?

If you look at the destruction, violence, greed, killings, poisoning of atmosphere; detainment without trial etc, you don't have to go further than the West? By any standards, the US has and is repsonsible for more deaths, torture, rapes etc than the Middle East.

Just because I don't believe in banning the burqa or getting rid of Islam etc, doesn't mean that I support violence and discrimination. I just don't think we're in the position to take the high moral ground on justice and equality. Take a look at the documentary, 'Unconstitutional-the war on civil liberties in the US'. Go to www.freedomumentaries.org or www.rawa.org

Incidently, Malalai Joya does not agree with banning the burqa either. As she correctly says, that's only a manifestation of the oppression; banning it doesn't change ATTITUDES!

Have you read her book? Any books about women in the Middle East?
Posted by Liz45, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 12:43:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another reason women should not be free to wear the burqa:
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/12/13/liberating-shrouds/
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 8:21:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,

"Have you read her book? Any books about women in the Middle East?"

Some: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Neda Kelek, Irshad Manji, Seyron Ates, Noni Darwish, Taslima Nasreen. Although you don't really need to read their books but just listen to what they are saying.

These are women coming from Islamic countries who fled to the West in order to obtain freedom, although unfortunately their outspokenness has given them body guards. Why, do you think?

You have overlooked the fundamentals.

As Ayaan has said, western feminists just luxuriate.

Oh Liz, you are a cracker. Think yourself lucky, baby!

You might want to read some on Jurgen Habermass while you're at it.
Posted by Constance, Tuesday, 14 December 2010 9:27:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Lizzy

I guess you have no argument which can refute my last clear post about "Islam"?

You seem to just want to push and peddle your 'anti capitalist' agenda in the "Grandma what big teeth you have" disguise.

Well.. Red Riding hood saw though the Wolf's disguise and we see through yours also.

*Calls the Wood Cutter*.....
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 5:48:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting declaration, Boaz.

>>That is why I would like "Islam" banned, which includes the Burqa<<

We are all well aware of your fear and loathing of anything Islamic. It oozes from your every post like pus from an ulcerating tumour.

But I would just like to point out that banning an entire religion places you firmly alongside such folk heroes as Pol Pot. He wiped out as many Muslims as he could, too.

Mind you, Pol Pot didn't much like Buddhists, Christians, educated people, Westerners, Vietnamese, Chinese, Laotians and disabled people either. But you have to start a campaign of hatred somewhere, I suppose.

And once you have cleared our society of Muslims, you could start on the Fabians and Marcusians, I guess.

It must really suck, having to carry around with you the weight of all that intolerance, day after day.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 7:39:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<It must really suck, having to carry around with you the weight of all that intolerance, day after day.>>

This is where the left always gets it upside down and back to front.

Islam is an intolerant ideology.
Islam is intolerant of any other worldview.
The intolerant verses of Islam have been thoroughly documented on this forum.
Islam divides the entire world into the house of Islam and the house of war (that's us infidels).
Islam's aim is to force the house of war to submit to the house of Islam.
That is the end goal of all the Islamic jihad happening every day all around the world.
It's there in the Islamic doctrine for all to see if only they weren't also blinded by their own particular, intolerant ideology.

It is simply not rational to accuse someone like AGiR of being intolerant merely for holding up a mirror to the intolerance of Islam.
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 8:47:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45<We have no reason to want to stamp out Islam due to the violence of some men in Afghanistan, any more than the fact it was descendants of catholic Ireland who viciously murdered Anita Corby, or a bloke brought up in this country who was convicted of at least 7 packpacker murders>

Those murderers will rot in prison in this country but in countries like Afghanistan and most other Islamic countries it would be believed that Anita Corby was a bad woman because she chose to walk home alone so she was breaking Islamic law by being out alone without wearing a burqa therefore she was totally responsible for the rape and the men were totally innocent and they wouldn’t have been punished at all. This is where the West differs from Islamic countries.

Although having said that, there is still a bit of an attitude similar in some ways to the thinking in Islamic countries here and it was only the fact that Anita Corby wasn’t walking home from a night club and was in fact going home after just having done what is perceived as a dedicated and hard working job suitable for a respectable woman (nursing) that caused more indignation and horror in her case and not blame directed towards the women unfairly as in other rape cases. Still justice was done here and the probability of justice being done in any rape cases in these strict Islamic countries where women wear the Burqa would have been nil.

What woman in her right mind would report being raped in Islamic countries, she would probably be stoned to death or killed in an honour killing. Those are the sort of things that the Burqa represents to me, total lack of any protection under the law for women in sex crimes. I dislike seeing it in this country for that reason, among others I have previously outlined.
Posted by CHERFUL, Thursday, 16 December 2010 2:17:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How the world turns, eh.

>>It is simply not rational to accuse someone like AGiR of being intolerant merely for holding up a mirror to the intolerance of Islam.<<

The idea being, I guess, that we should do as they do.

I really don't understand the rationale. It must be me, because you Christians all seem to sing from the same song sheet.

"They don't build churches in Saudi Arabia, so we shouldn't build mosques here"

"They are intolerant, so we should be too."

I'm pretty sure that once upon a time we used to be proud of our society's maturity, and held that our tolerance and understanding was a virtue to be admired and aspired to.

Instead, we have this childish approach that if they behave badly, then it is necessary for us to behave in exactly the same way.

Please explain?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 16 December 2010 6:09:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In an Islamic country I wore an abaya (burqa) whenever in public. I went to lunch at an American compound once and had to sit through two hours of filthy looks from all the Americans when I refused to remove it. How was I to know that day that I should have worn clothes underneath? But instead like all westerners they just leapt to their conclusions. :)

I thought most religions promoted men beating their wives no matter what the dress code?

I have Middle Eastern neighbours who happen to be Catholic and back in the Middle East their family and village for generations has been Catholic. They wear the burqa, big bloody fat hairy deal it isn’t.

I still have my abaya, if I put it on I am suddenly some oppressed Muslim women some of you are going to approach on the street and be kind to? Please don’t, it’s creepy.

I don’t think the Muslims in Fiji wear them or the Indian ones, I don’t really care.

But if I want to wear it, or a cross, turban, one of those Jewish skull caps, or a nuns outfit I’m gonna.

For an Aussie summer the abaya is awesome and you can get them in different colours now. Woots.
Posted by Jewely, Thursday, 16 December 2010 7:06:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I have Middle Eastern neighbours who happen to be Catholic and back in the Middle East their family and village for generations has been Catholic. They wear the burqa, big bloody fat hairy deal it isn’t."

Are you confusing burqa and hijab, Ms Jewel? The burqa is the voluminous all-encompassing mobile marquee tent thing, with either a tiny eye-slit, or a gauze section to "see" out of, so beloved of the Taliban and Saudis. Hijab is merely the headscarf. As for your neighbours, have you stopped to consider that those Catholics wear (presumably, headscarves, not burqa) because they have spent generations living alongside Muslims? Where for a female to go out in public without a headscarf automatically (in the minds of Muslims) labels them as Christians, kufaars (infidels) generally, or prostitutes, liable to be raped, abducted and forcibly married and converted to Islam, or even killed. Hijab is worn by Middle Eastern non-Muslim women for protection!

You post shows an amazing lack of knowledge and insight, I'm afraid.
Posted by viking13, Thursday, 16 December 2010 10:22:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re the education of women and their employment in countries in the Middle east. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, women went to University, and unlike here, were paid while they attended. (Read Baghdad Burning on line - Iraqi woman's blog - starts prior to the invasion, until she and her family had to leave due to danger).The punishment for rape in Iraq was execution - this was changed by the US, via Paul Bremmer. Women wore western clothes, as they did in Afghanistan at one stage - in between when the Russians left and the Taliban/war lords etc took over. It's the radical fundamentalists who brought in the oppressive dictates. There are many men in Afghanistan who don't violate women and girls - sadly, they're targets for torture and execution too!

You don't bring about democracy by dictating via the Law. all you'd do is turn those women who wear the burqa into criminals, and they'd be even more isolated - wouldn't go to school, Uni, TAFE or work etc, and so wouldn't have contact with any support networks - that would defeat the purpose. You can rest assured, that neither Senator bernadino or Fred Nile would stay in contact with them, or even give them a thought. they have ulterior motives, based on their own brand of extreme fundamentalist christianity! They're just as bad, and would be worse if given the chance!

In the West, we could do more for women by examing the use and abuse of sexist behaviour re women and kids in advertising. How women are still encouraged to starve themselves, even though their employers were supposed to be taking a more responsible position. Displaying women as sex objects is more dangerous than being completely covered up. We should also take more notice of the violence in DVD's, TV/Video games-graphic violence of women etc. we're far from being entitled to take the high moral ground! We have very grubby hands indeed, and have much to do!
Posted by Liz45, Thursday, 16 December 2010 2:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes indeed Liz,

" .... we're far from being entitled to take the high moral ground! We have very grubby hands indeed, and have much to do!"

There's no 'high moral ground' at the moment in Afghanistan: there's only 'low', and 'much lower'.

So we come back to it: do we abandon Afghanistan to the Taliban ? Yes ? No ?

In many ways, burqa and religion are separate issues: the various head-dresses required of women to demonstrate their modesty and submission to men and to the families they marry into are historical and social features, more to do with particular societies than with Islam, although Islamists are, I'm sure, exploiting the holy word etc. to keep women in their place, and using dress codes to do it, just as the Taliban use beard codes with the men.

So yes, to keep women marked off in conservative societies ['conservative' - there's a euphemism for you], to demonstrate that they are walking the straight and narrow, they must wear coverings of various sorts. They may even assert their 'right' to wear such covering in order to show how modest and reliably subservient they are. But of course, ultimately, it would be liberating if they could wear whatever they damn-well liked, wherever they liked. But their societies, their social relations, are not up to that yet, it seems.

As for the rest of us, it's not really our business: some things are not about us.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 16 December 2010 2:24:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abaya – the whole deal, black long sleeved flowing dress with head gear Viking (the person - I aint wearing horns). Children watch their mother’s feet and identify them by their shoes. I’m blonde, I had to cover everything (for protection from dirty looks).

The teens would pass each other sneaky notes in public since the boys and girls couldn’t be seen talking.

I learnt in the Middle East that Middle Eastern men and also their neighbours the Mediterranean men have similar attitudes to women, no matter the religion.

Do you know many Muslims? Lived with many? They really get all tarred with the same brush. Stopped and talked to Mutawa? Well one, once – he must have been particularly progressive eh. Custom, culture and religion my little friend… a mix not easily understood. And many superstitions also which I guess is maybe under the heading of culture.

But we judge them quickly enough without the understanding. They are different races from different countries. A Muslim in one country judging one from another also forgets this stuff.

Liz is making sense to me, don’t dictate to others and try and understand what it will do to many of the women if ordered to removed their burqa or their hijab. Some of them see the burqa as removing certain obstacles and making all women equal to each other. Those ones usually have amazing shoe collections.
Posted by Jewely, Thursday, 16 December 2010 2:41:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45

Your arguments continue to be lopsided and one eyed. Your opponent appears to be fictitious - in your own head which is why it is so hard to engage with what you say - given your reluctance to truly engage in the discussion.

Who in this forum is advocating turning women who wear the burqua into criminals or even presenting strong arguments for banning or discouraging them from wearing it?

Yes many of us hate the thing, would not wear it and do not like that others feel the need to wear it, HOWEVER, as I recall the discussion had very sensibly turned to a level of agreement that it's use should be banned not on religious grounds and only in specific circumstances where public or individual safety is at risk. This approach does not victimise nor does it criminalise the wearer.

So please tell me, do you take issue with such a position?
Posted by JanF, Thursday, 16 December 2010 3:03:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"HOWEVER, as I recall the discussion had very sensibly turned to a level of agreement that it's use should be banned not on religious grounds and only in specific circumstances where public or individual safety is at risk. This approach does not victimise nor does it criminalise the wearer."

You just contradicted yourself.If the wearing of a burqa is banned, than anyone wearing it will break the law, end up in court, with a conviction - hence, the Law will make criminals out of them. A dangerous precedent I'd suggest!

I think if you read through all the posts, you'll see that some people like you, believe that it should be banned!

Where would they be banned from? I'd suggest that boys wearing 'hoodies' have committed more crimes in this country than women wearing a burqa? Where do we draw the line? Men with full facial beards wearing sunnies and a caftan type outfit? A Catholic bishop/priests etc wear dresses? Look at the gathering during World Youth Week? They could've had an AK47 under their 'dresses'? A security risk? A good idea is to ask who is calling for a ban, and what is their reason? It's Senator Bernadino and Fred Nile - both extreme right wing fundamentalist christians, who've objected to a Muslim school etc and made pretty hateful comments about Islam! That's what is behind this. I don't think women object to uncovering their faces in a bank etc or on their drivers licence etc?

They engage in 'dog whistling' tactics. They make comments that on the surface may sound OK, but their real message is to the racists, haters and bigots! That's why they carry on. Catholic nuns wore full length dresses for years-if they wore sunnies you wouldn't see much of their faces either. In all the yrs of going to school etc, not one word of concern. This is a beat up!
Posted by Liz45, Thursday, 16 December 2010 5:33:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good points, Liz.

I don't think I've ever seen a woman in a burqa, but then I live a very sheltered life. A couple of women wearing nikabs, yes - neither looked at all threatening (my God, they had the most beautiful eyes ! And there are aspects that no abaya can conceal).

I wonder if any woman in Australia wearing a nikab has EVER held up a bank, compared to people wearing hoodies ? Or bike-helmets ? Any stats on any of this, or are we just going by gut feelings ?

Thought so. So yes, I agree that this whole thing is a beat-up.

There is a time to flare up, and there is a time to live and let live, guys.
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 16 December 2010 5:48:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't suppose too many banks get robbed by burqa-clad humanoids in little old Adelaide.
But given time and a self-destructive immigration policy which doesn't discriminate against Islamists,
they should be coming soon to a bank near you too.

"Niqabs and Burqas – The Veiled Threat Continues"
http://www.faithfreedom.org/op-ed/niqabs-and-burqas-the-veiled-threat-continues/
Posted by Proxy, Thursday, 16 December 2010 7:39:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You aren’t going to ban them Jan but you want to tell them where and when they can where them and this you feel by your standards is not victimizing them?

Maybe we should introduce a national uniform and practice what we preach. And burn down the mosques because they surely represent everything a burqa does.

After we tell people how to dress and remove all places of worship – what comes next?

I should go back and read the thread; I came in way too late. Have bridal veils, nuns’ habits, motorbike helmets in banks, long hair when driving, burns victims with masks, sunglasses, facial tattoos, criminals using disguises anyway, French people and ugly people all been covered yet?
Posted by Jewely, Thursday, 16 December 2010 8:03:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"After we ... remove all places of worship – what comes next?"

Why would we do that?
Surely they are places of peace, aren't they?
Like their religion of peace?

"Swedish Politician infiltrates large mosque in Stockholm"
http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=28299
Posted by Proxy, Thursday, 16 December 2010 9:07:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Proxy,

Yeah, even in Adelaide, we don't see too many boogey-men either. I thought I saw an honest politican once, but that was just a mirage.

So as soon as you hear about a woman in a nikab or burqa holding up a bank or post office - or any enterprise whatever - let me know and I will grovel before you :)

But only on condition that you lay off persecuting them until that happens ? Deal ?

Joe
Adelaide
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 16 December 2010 10:59:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,

Your arguments are absurd and intellectually dishonest. The comparisons you use are non-political. Hoody wearers are mere fashion victims and are likely disaffected youths (they have NO POLITICAL cause, and I don't believe they are tribal - seems they only seek cool) - ie. no threat. And as for the nuns - they wore habits to separate themselves symbolically from the secular world because they were married to God, so assisted their vocation- religious, clergy, right? They didn't cause any social anxiety (unlike the niqabs) that is why there was no fuss! Purely their religious vocation - totally benign and unquestionable. They are not political, so no threat. Why haven't you realised this? And the nuns have since lightened up their dress since Vatican II even though there was no fuss caused to society in general. And as for Irish Catholic bashing? Please..... I'm pretty sure Irish Catholicism doesn't espouse murdering (?). Is there something I've overlooked here where they are now threatening the world all-over? Haven't you noticed times (and that there are murderers in all cultures)have changed and it is a different world we're living in now. You seem to be completely ignorant that Islam is not just a relgion, but an ideology and moreso at it's most fundamental, very political and dangerous. Hello? You have heard of honor killings, haven't you (and I won't bother mentioning the bleeding obvious)? Also includes suicides, particularly from Muslim women living in the west that have innocently given away some inkling of becoming westernised. What is reported is just the tip of the iceburg. And that 30-40% of English Muslims believe that any Muslims converting to another religion should be killed. Do you find this disconcerting? And of course the rest. But I don't have the time. You are just naively protecting and deterring any REFORM. The mainly ex-Muslim activists (maybe a couple still Muslims -not sure) I cited in my previous post (you never responded?) dearly want REFORM within Islam. Have you ever heard of any of these women, Liz?

Cont.....
Posted by Constance, Friday, 17 December 2010 12:08:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.../Cont. White guilt feel-good fawning is just useful idiocy and is so ignorantly pretentious. And please don't use the racism et al platitudes. It get's really boringly repetitive and is blatantly dodgy, and unfairly quashes any real debate. And this isn't about racism, it is about bad ideology. There is no golden rule in Islam of Love Thy Neigbour for a start. I don't know if it was included in Sufism, but at least that sect of Islam seems to be the prettier of the others - the mystical part. Which is what religion means to me and of which contributes to the intellect also. But unfortunately the other Muslim sects do not seem to like Sufism and their voice consequentially is never heard.

/Cont...
Posted by Constance, Friday, 17 December 2010 12:13:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.../Cont. Liz,

I am equally disgusted with the sexualisation of children and females, and cringe with raunch culture. But you must realise that Islam does sexualise this also insidiously by way of covering up the girl conspicuously who has once reached puberty. Niqabs et al are far too extreme and are just as ostentatious as the more common scantily clad that have lost any real culture. But the sexualised exhibitionism is not politcal, only mindlessness (still, I worry) but at least they have freedom all the same. And I must say, when I encounter a niqab clad being, I feel offended and feel like I'm being perved at and that it is not an open two way street - ie. they have power over me and it in itself makes me very uncomfortable. If you are all for niqab, you are denying human nature and its physicality and natural freedom. Was there a response somewhere that the complete cover up of body brings equality. Ha. We are each born ugly, beautiful and in between - we are not all born equal in this way physically. If you cannot accept that, you are denying humans and are just playing envy and jealosy that will not be admitted. And it is an unnatural separation of the sexes. Why are the men so sexually fixated, paranoid and insecure in this innane display of protection/oppression of their women. They need to grow up. It is completely absurd and a denial of human nature. I've never seen Muslim culture dancing together between the sexes or otherwise and it seems they have not much liking for music and even seem to try to ban it. There seems to be so much darkness. At the same time, I think the West could actually learn or at least be reminded of modesty from Muslims in some way but not so ostentatiously.

As Nietsche said when God goes, so does the West. I'm no zealot and hardly religious myself.
Posted by Constance, Friday, 17 December 2010 12:17:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some here need to be reminded again that the issue is about wearing the burqua which is a cultural tradition also practised by some but by no means all Muslims.

Liz has latched onto something I've said in order to caste me again as her fictitious "racist" opponent.

In fact, dear Liz I have Australian Muslims in my extended family who are close relatives by marriage - people I care for dearly - given their large families there are many relatives. Not one that I know of wears the burqua although a few of the more oppressed homebound wives wear a hijab when they go out, a practice I find offensive only on the basis that it appears to signify disempowered women who bow to male domination.

I am aware of several instances of serious abuse of women within this wider extended family/culture although not amongst my close relatives, as if to abuse women (seen as possessions of men) were a male right within this culture.

I am also aware of instances of mental illness amongst males in this wider extended family - who is to say why this is so, perhaps a background of trauma in a war torn part of the world, or perhaps due to the unreal and out of touch way that many of them seek to live/oppressive practices they seek to perpetuate in Australia where their perspectives/sense of reality are constantly challenged.
Posted by JanF, Friday, 17 December 2010 8:51:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I am also aware of instances of mental illness amongst males in this wider extended family - who is to say why this is so, perhaps a background of trauma in a war torn part of the world, or perhaps due to the unreal and out of touch way that many of them seek to live/oppressive practices they seek to perpetuate in Australia where their perspectives/sense of reality are constantly challenged."

This would not be helped by the high level of consanguineous marriages amongst Arabs, Saudis in particular. Over generations, this is not good for the gene pool. In the past in may have been alleviated by the taking (euphemism, and I mean in the sense of "taking that woman") of "right hand possessions" (slaves taken in war) where the resultant children were of mixed race, since the Arabs took slaves from all over the Islamic empire (including Europe). This would not be the case today, even though slavery (and "right hand possessions") are still perfectly legal under Islamic law. Hence the large number of black "Palestinians".
Posted by viking13, Friday, 17 December 2010 10:40:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Constance:”Was there a response somewhere that the complete cover up of body brings equality.”

Almost… depends if your shoes are prettier.

Constance:“We are each born ugly, beautiful and in between - we are not all born equal in this way physically. If you cannot accept that, you are denying humans and are just playing envy and jealosy that will not be admitted.”

I accept it, I just feel sorry for the ugly ones.

Constance:”And it is an unnatural separation of the sexes. Why are the men so sexually fixated, paranoid and insecure in this innane display of protection/oppression of their women.”

Dunno but in places where the chicks wear the burqa the men are all covered up too. I’m not sure which is scarier, a jealous man or a jealous woman. Have you seen what those poor men who have several wives go through? Yeah seemed like a good idea at the time I bet.

Viking from what I saw keeping the money in the family leads to cousins marrying cousins… not a big deal until those cousins marry the other ones and the genes get closer. Saudi has “child cancer” wards full of mutated children. Fascinating what money (not religion) will do.
Posted by Jewely, Friday, 17 December 2010 10:58:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I just feel sorry for the ugly ones."

Thank you, Jewely, it's about time we got some sympathy.

Somebody please correct me if my maths are out, but as I understand cousin-cousin marriages, they have the same grandparents. But so did they, and so did theirs. So their gene pool is limited to four ancestral contributors: does that sound right ?

But, when an unrelated couple marries, they have different grandparents, gt-gt-grandparents, etc., at least for many generations, a multitude of gene pools and a multitude of ancestral genetic contributors. Go back far enough, say three or four hundred years, and of course they start to share ancestors: there are only so many people in an entire region or country.

Is cousin-cousin marriage solely related to limiting inheritance of property to the extended family ? So is it an anti-social expression, of hostility and opposition between (extended) family and society generally ? Marx's colleague Fred Engels wrote a fascinating little book (Origin of the Family ....) dealing partly with the contradiction between group and family which might warrant another reading :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 17 December 2010 11:42:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U9f2u5Ui6c
Posted by JanF, Friday, 17 December 2010 4:45:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIpdC0o3mdM
Posted by Proxy, Friday, 17 December 2010 9:59:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Proxy. Now I understand why some people in this forum have been fighting so hard to protect women's right to wear the burqua - LOL
Posted by Wal, Saturday, 18 December 2010 4:56:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sometimes, even the burqa reveals too much:

'"Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice ... members have orders to tell any women in public to cover up her face if they find that her eyes are seditious,” ... said ... Sheikh Mutlaq Al Nabit, a Commission spokesman in Hael.
Women in Saudi Arabia, one of the most conservative Muslim nations, must veil their faces in public but some of them uncover their eyes.'

http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/women-with-seditious-eyes-must-cover-up-2010-11-14-1.317325

How much Islamic freedom can burqa-lovers bear?
Posted by Proxy, Saturday, 18 December 2010 9:06:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Proxy: it must be difficult for such reactionary societies - they need women, but they don't want women. Without women, there won't be another generation of men, but what to do with them while they are needed ?

Keep your woman either indoors or covered up, either way out of sight of those other b@stards who would impregnate her as soon as look at her, so find ways so that she can't be looked at, and keep her supervised. That way, you can be sure of the paternity of her children. But once she's done her job .....

What a ghastly culture for women. So the only way they can get out of the house is by agreeing to wear the nikab, or burqa ? Then let's not impose more burdens on them by somehow blaming them for their own oppression.

I heard recently of a Muslim student who remarked to an Australian friend, 'you're lucky, you have no culture.'

Yes, sometimes I suspect that 'culture' is not much more than elaborate ways to justify dominant social relations, i.e. who has the power in a society and who is subordinate and does most of the work, apart from raising the group's children and thereby perpetuating it.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 18 December 2010 9:55:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@JanF - "Liz, if you think I could be bothered reading that dense diatribe, you are mistaken.Posted by JanF, Monday, 13 December 2010 1:18:28 PM"

Ditto!

I ask people to remember, that around the world, including this country, millions of people who practise the Islamic faith do so in a quiet and deliberate manner; they uphold human rights and don't discriminate the role of women, nor do they commit acts of violence!

I find it intriguing the people who demonise the Islamic faith without even a hint of acknowledgement to the Bible and its history. The Old Testament dictated, that working on the Sabbath should bring about execution; that it was OK to have sex with your kids etc?

To those who think we should get rid of Islam, what's to stop those who do the banning include you in their next program? Who does the banning? How do you stop them moving on to either other religions or political points of view? Remove any right to join a political party, like the Burmese do? That is why we have basic human rights in this country and respect the fact, that people have the right to lead their own lives in their own way, without interference from the Parliament, Police Force or the Judiciary - the 3 arms of the political part of the country. I agree with this view!

Do people think that banning Islam would make life better for women?

As for the Taliban, they were encouraged by the US, as were Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. If people are anti the Taliban(which I am)why are the US/NATO forces allowing them to join their puppet Karzai in the Afghani Parlt? Why do they allow the war lords and others to keep on killing the citizens of that country?Why didn't they scream when the war criminals now in the Parlt, introduce Legislation that prevents them ever being called to account for their rapes, torture and horrific killings?
Posted by Liz45, Saturday, 18 December 2010 10:42:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont).
There were Afghanis in Australia at least 100 yrs ago, they helped build the West, that's why the train from Perth to Darwin is called The Ghan. They lived their lives,raised their kids and practised their Islamic faith, without too much notice from the rest of the country. Their descendants are still here, doing the same thing.

The abuse of women in countries that practice the Islamic faith is not just applicable to Muslims. For example,female genital mutilation is a cultural and economic practise that is spread over the population, including Christians.There are the clothes, the celebrations beforehand and those who perform this practise, which has created an economic component.(I attended a seminar by the body in NSW whose role is to educate Muslims who are living here - it is illegal in NSW, probably everywhere in Aust. I hope!)
Posted by Liz45, Saturday, 18 December 2010 10:48:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When the US carried on over 9/11 and immediately used it as a means to further their goals for the Middle East, they put themselves in the same or worse position than those they criticised.
9/11 was a horrific crime and should've been treated as such.
those allegedly responsible came from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, not Afghanistan.
the US got rid of the waste and rubble with undue haste, instead of treating it as evidence at a crime scene.
the bin Laden family were allowed to leave the US the next day?strange, considering they thought OBL was to blame.
the US treated the workers in an appalling manner - they've just won their Court case for damages - many are dying, others have died, due to the myriad of toxins inhaled!

I'd find the arguments re the Taliban's cruelty as having some credibility, if the same arguments were put forward re the US/NATO and allies, including us. Why is it horrific for someone with a turban killing someone worse,than removing a child's head with an automatic weapon carried by a US or Australian military person? What is OK with phosphorus bombs,or cluster bombs or bombs made from Depleted Uranium, that are causing birth defects and cancers NOW and will continue to do so years after the West leaves their countries?

I find the selective rage interesting and frustrating! A drone can remove a whole village or wedding party of 20-? people!Is that better because it's sophisticated and with no human involved on the ground?

If the aim is to bring "peace and democracy" to the people of Iraq & AFghanistan, how come we're killing so many? How come,that even after we realised there were no WMD's, we went on and killed over 1 million people? What part of justice is that?

How many people in the Middle East/Latin & Central America, Vietnam & Israel etc killed Westerners, and how many has the United States and its Allies killed in those countries? I know who the real terrorists are?Afghanistan hasn't invaded other countries in the past 30+ years?
Posted by Liz45, Saturday, 18 December 2010 11:06:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Liz,

1. Give Afghanistan back to the Taliban to exploit as an Islamist haven ?

2. Put up with the Yanks and us staying there for some time ?

3. ??

Meanwhile, back to the topic: if the only way that some Muslim women can get out of the house and see something of the world around them is to wear what their mothers and grandmothers have been wearing, then the issue of banning or not banning the burqa (i.e. the nikab ? the hijab ?) becomes: should Muslim women be allowed out in public ?

Surely the answer to that question has to be YES ? What they wear, and how long they will put up with clothing restrictions and stipulations in the comparatively open Australian society ('comparatively', Liz) is their internal 'cultural business'.

In the meantime, I'll bet that there won't be any burqa-driven bank robberies, or even all that many car accidents. And how on earth can such garments represent any sort of threat to anybody ? Jesus, get a life.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 18 December 2010 11:27:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@LOUDMOUTH - Who are you asking to "get a life"? Me or Joe?

As for the Taliban & Afghanistan. The war lords committed just as many horrific crimes of violence as the Taliban. These people, together with many in the Karzai govt have their own militia - there's three forces in Afghanistan,and Malalai Joya insists, that the Afghan people want the US/NATO forces out as they could then deal with those Afghanis who are oppressing them so badly. In fact, they're assisting the foreign troops; keeping the people intimidated and terrified just like they are in Iraq?If the violence decreased due to the troops being there, perhaps it could be argued they should stay, but by the US's own words, this has been the most violent year, and there's not much talk of improvement - unless you just follow their media bs!

Why doesn't the US say to Karzai - this violence must stop; you must get rid of the criminals by having them charged etc. No! That's not an option for the US because they don't give a stuff about the people, men woman and kids!If they did, they'd remove the land mines, the cluster bombs and depleted uranium bombs! Then, the people wouldn't need to flee!
But to those here who've carried the line, we should just ban Islam due to their violence, I say, let's look at ourselves first - we're no great role models - they hate us, and I don't blame them one bit!

I've used up my 4 posts for 24 hrs I think!
Posted by Liz45, Saturday, 18 December 2010 11:48:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, Liz, I certainly didn't mean you, only those who go on about banning the almost non-existent burqa, and who find it (or the nikab ? or the hijab ?) 'threatening', or 'offensive', as if it was all about them.

Yes, it would be wonderful if there was a third way in Afghanistan, as Malalai Joya suggests (what a wonderful, brave woman: she could teach Assange a thing or two about courage in the face of almost certain death). If such a third way was viable, I would certainly support it, and I suspect that the Yanks would too: I don't think they are actively seeking to send troops hither and yon at the moment, they have too many other troubles.

But in the event that a third way can't really be developed, at least not for a few years, then I would prefer the Yanks to stay rather than the Islamists taking over - if only because of what they might do to Malalai Joya, and the hundreds of thousands of women who have lifted their heads. In fact, Joya and others are probably furious with the Yanks precisely because they have not honoured their implicit promises to bring human rights to Afghanistan, to liberate its women from their cultural yokes.

There's a slogan for the Left, if it actually had the wits, or the decency:

'Human Rights, not Culture !'

- including the right of women to wear whatever they liked.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 18 December 2010 12:24:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That clip cracked me up Proxy, nice one.

And the article….as a reaction to Saudi we want to ban the burqa now? Is banning the burqa really us sending a message to all Muslims about how we have judged their religion?

To me it looks like an idea that has come from a place that doesn’t have a lot to do with the women or what choices we believe they have or do not have. To me it looks like using the women under the disguise of “freeing” them. Are we trying to make ourselves feel better in some way?

Awhile ago I went to the supermarket (here in Aussie) in the middle of the night wearing my pajamas expecting it to be pretty empty of people. I’m standing in an aisle and round the corner walks a lady in a burqa and her hubby (wearing the male equivalent). I felt embarrassed but now I’m wondering if they felt the same way.

Loudmouth:”Then let's not impose more burdens on them by somehow blaming them for their own oppression.”

Story for you Joe… I caught my young children being rude to a servant. I began to tell them off when the servant interrupted with “it is okay ma’am”. No it isn't I say and he again told me it was and it went back and forward for awhile like this as the children stood there wide eyed and jaws dropping. Finally I shouted at him that it was not okay for anyone to be bloody rude to him.

I’d have to go do some reading about the genetic stuff, I just know they they limit their gene pool for financial reasons.

Like when the Vatican fully embraced celibacy thereby being able to deny their offspring the right to claim any inheritance, it was a perfectly sensible decision to protect wealth but zero to do with religion.

No matter how or why the burqa became important, it is to many of the women who chose to continue to wear it and I agree that we shouldn’t run around assuming they are oppressed.
Posted by Jewely, Saturday, 18 December 2010 2:17:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe the radical feminists need the burqa to show they are at war with white men.

Or is that war against religion, but only of the Christian kind. Hold on, that would be the Green Left at it again. "Youse are all Islamophobes and racists if you don't support the burqa". Yep, Green Left snorting green ink again.

The radical feminists lock-stepped with the Green Left?! Doesn't bear thinking about. At least no children can come of the union.

So, returning to the Australia context that is the subject of this thread, it would be most unfortunate and regrettable if anyone encouraged vulnerable women to believe that our laws and law enforcement are inadequate to the task of protecting them, or that the reasonable demands of citizens such as themselves cannot be achieved through community consultation and support mechanisms and our democratic political processes. The simple act of joining a school P&C or a community mothers' group can be enormously empowering, serving to build contacts and remove the feeling of isolation. That is very different to building more walls and more misunderstanding.

Australian women have choice and any limitations are self imposed.

There is nothing healthy nor liberating in being shrouded from top to toe. Honestly, who would encourage it anyhow if it weren't for a secondary agenda that suits them, not you.
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 18 December 2010 4:24:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I love the notion that the wearing of the burqua represents the oppression of women by their husbands - who are (allegedly) forcing them to wear it and thereby removing their freedom of choice. The solution? Make the State pass laws to force them NOT to wear it, also the removal of another freedom of choice.”
Posted by wobbles, Monday, 6 December 2010 1:26:50 AM

This comment raises a few questions or assumptions.

Firstly, what motivates people to wear what they do?
Secondly, several here so far seemed to have worked on the premise that “freedom of choice” is the highest goal or value in the game.

Freedom of choice is no ultimate value or measure for anything.

Freedom of choice is not what we’re trying to teach our kids when we buy them their school uniforms. Freedom of choice is not what goes through the minds of soldiers (or any number of other professional people) when they get dressed in the morning. I’m guessing that the burqa is also some kind of uniform that adds to a sense of safety, identity or belonging that is valued above some unfamiliar ideal that is 'freedom of choice'.

Neither could freedom of choice be the ultimate guiding principle for any legislator. For any law must naturally infringe upon freedoms (if your idea of freedom is to do what you want, where you want, when you want [not forgetting the obligatory cliché, 'so long as you don't hurt anyone else']).
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 19 December 2010 6:13:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@DAN S - I agree! A woman from the middle east asserts,that the mothers of the young women who are wearing the burqa didn't wear it, even in their home country. In some ME countries, it's only a recent dictate - Iran since their revolution; Iraq after the US?Allies invasion and Afghanistan first with the Taliban and then with the other fundamentalist/war lords. These 3 countries used to have western values re clothes. Not having the ocean at their doorstep hasn't engendered a strong desire to swim, so who knows what that would've involved. It was only 80 yrs ago when men in this country wore those woolen costumes, and women were covered from neck to knee - at first, women weren't even allowed to swim?

I'm amazed at the response to this, when probably less than .o1% of women in the country wear a burqa. The hysteria by the govt people over this only reinforces their misogynist and fundamentalist christian views. How they claim the rights to christianity with their views amazes me. Fred Nile pronounces Muslim as 'muzzlim'? Even that grates on my nerves. I reminds me of the americans pronunciation of Moscow as 'mozcow'with a nasally emphasis on 'cow'? It was meant to be demeaning, and it succeeded!

I do not have a problem with the burqa. I DO have a problem with the sexualisation of women and girls though! I'd have more respect for Bernadino and Nile if they showed some concern in this area, or child abuse or domestic violence! Not a word passes their lips on these issues?
Posted by Liz45, Monday, 20 December 2010 10:13:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,
You throw around terms that I'm not convinced you would even have definitions for. I think that's what Pip calls 'dog whistling'.

What is a Christian fundamentalist?
What is a Muslim fundamentalist? I understand that fundamentalist is not even a category within Muslim theology.  
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 20 December 2010 2:19:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"fundamentalist" are those who have radical views about their religion. Fundamentalist catholics adopt the Opus Dei dialogue and dogma, fundamentalist Muslims are those like the Taliban and others in Afghanistan who think that killing a woman is no differnt to killing a bird; that the Laws they introduced re women were just too radical and appalling for words. Such as, 'women must not be heard while walking; women must not speak, laugh etc where they could be heard outside their home; that there's only two places women should be, at home or in the grave. Go and read, 'Raising My Voice' by Malalai Joya, or go on the website of www.rawa.org or read 'Veiled Courage' or lots of others. It's not the ordinary men who practice their Islamic faith who oppress or are violent to women, it's the 'fundamentalists' who do it!

Another name for fundamentalists are the neo-cons who practice extreme right wing philosophies and promote them, like those who believe that Julian Assange should be executed?
You need to read more mate!
Posted by Liz45, Monday, 20 December 2010 3:30:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good question, Dan S de Merengue. I've often wondered myself.

>>What is a Christian fundamentalist?<<

Wikipedia gives us some namby-pamby, wishy-washy stuff along the lines that Christian Fundamentalism had been "defined by historian George M. Marsden as 'militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism.'"

All sounds very Wikipedia-worthy.

I much prefer examples, myself, rather than definitions. Like this set, the "Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian".

http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

I think I like this one best. For obvious reasons.

"5. You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old."

Meanwhile, from an earlier post:

>>Freedom of choice is no ultimate value or measure for anything.<<

Very true.

The same may be said of freedom itself, of course.

Since it is always relative to something else - imprisonment, for example. Or living under tyranny. Or being subject to laws that dictate what you are allowed, and not allowed to wear.

Oddly, though, freedom is something that humans value quite highly. Especially, I understand, when they don't have any, or when it is restricted in some way.

>>Neither could freedom of choice be the ultimate guiding principle for any legislator.<<

True, also.

But freedom - as in freedom of choice, in this case - is certainly a significant factor in the determination of legislation, at least in the more civilized countries.

"Reductio ad absurdum" is an entertaining piece of intellectual gymnastics.

But not at all convincing as an argument in itself.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 20 December 2010 3:42:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Liz,

According to your definition, the word fundamentalist can be ascribed to those who have ‘radical’ (whatever that means) views, those who adopt the Opus Dei dialogue, those who hold women in low (or no) esteem, those who are violent or who hold violent intentions towards Julian Assange, and those on the right wing.

In summary we can say that your definition of the word fits anyone who is particularly unpleasant, or anyone Liz45 finds particularly distasteful, but it’s not a particularly tight definition. Continue along these lines and we may find that words will stop meaning anything at all.

All I ask is that we try and to use words a bit more precisely.

And I’d prefer if you didn’t call me mate.

Thanks, Pericles, for trying to clear things up.

By your definition, Fundamentalists don’t even exist. For the details of your point 5 definition don’t fit any category of people that I know or have heard of. They’re possibly a fictitious collection of straw men.

I agree that much of what you find on Wikipedia can be wishy-washy, or namby-pamby. That’s comes with the nature of the beast, and is not unexpected for most encyclopaedia, which are not bad for a quick reference on something but are hardly authoritative.

The word ‘freedom’ is less technical, but still quite vague. It means quite different things to different people in different contexts.

But the word is there, found among the three word motto of the French republic: “fraternité, égalité, liberté”. It is supposedly according to these principles of the French Republic that the French have passed laws against the wearing of the burqa
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 20 December 2010 5:07:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We're discussing the banning of the burqa in Australia. If you don't or can't follow the general meaning of fundamentalists, then you need to read more, or read books or articles by ordinary people, such as Malalai Joya.

If you weren't brought up catholic, then you won't even know about Opus Dei, unless of course you're part of that group, which would explain a lot. I'm not engaging in an intellectual type debate to win a prize, I'm engaging in a conversation about this topic.

"I agree that much of what you find on Wikipedia can be wishy-washy, or namby-pamby." I didn't even mention Wikipedia? If you want to challenge me, stick to what I said. READ it!

I take it sir, that I won't even get a pass mark! Oh dear!
do you always carry on like this, or do you just like the sound of your own voice?

The main point is, that I don't believe that anyone in this country has the right to ban an item of clothing that is worn by perhaps .01% of the female Muslim population! It's dumb, stupid and un-democratic!Racist too!
Posted by Liz45, Monday, 20 December 2010 5:19:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's odd, Dan S de Merengue.

>>For the details of your point 5 definition don’t fit any category of people that I know or have heard of. They’re possibly a fictitious collection of straw men.<<

For some strange reason, I thought the definition fitted your defence of Creationism to a "T"

Must be getting forgetful in my old age... (exits, muttering)
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 20 December 2010 5:22:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,
You are right to assume that I don't know much about Opus Dei. I'm not a Catholic, and I don't take much notice of Dan Brown novels. 

But you are wrong to assume that I don't read sufficiently. I've read enough to know that the word Fundamentalist is used (and misused) in so many different contexts that it has become next to meaningless. 

For example, Christians who believe in certain historic miracles, such as the virgin birth, have been known as fundamentalists. Muslims who want to deny girls' education are known so likewise. Yet the two share precious little in common. Yet, as I mentioned above, fundamentalist is not a category of Muslim theology, so how does it make any sense to call them that?

The wearing of the burqa has little or nothing to do with Muslim theology. It's a cultural thing. Therefore the word fundamentalist is misplaced here.

Muslims who like the burqa are labelled 'fundamentalists'. Fred Nile, who wants to ban it, is also labelled a 'fundamentalist'. Are all the members of the French parliament who voted to ban it also fundamentalists? 

You say no one has the right to make a law banning certain clothing. I believe that the legislature has the right to pass any law that is wished by the majority and is in line with the Constitution.

Pericles,
It's a little off topic, but since you mention creationists with such indulgence, creationists are not as you've described. They are those who have adopted a position following the reading of the scriptures in their proper grammatical and historical contexts, consistent and favourable with the entire gamut of empirical evidence.    
    
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 20 December 2010 10:54:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That must be where I went wrong, Dan S de Merengue.

>>...creationists are not as you've described. They are those who have adopted a position following the reading of the scriptures in their proper grammatical and historical contexts, consistent and favourable with the entire gamut of empirical evidence.<<

And there was me, thinking that those scriptures were "recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents", as described in that piece of satire.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 20 December 2010 11:14:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Liz (who also needs to read more!),

If you are going to accept the niqab without qualms, you should also consider the health risks and recommend Vitamin D pills and cod liver oil (while wearing) for all wearers, if you really care. Lack of sunlight on body causes Rickets and contributes to Osteoporosis. Also Prosac would be useful also - as a lack of sunlight can also cause DEPRESSION/OPPRESSION. So I would suggest a health risk warning tag on the niqab garments sold for those who seek an unnatural dress lifestyle. Otherwise they will be a burden to the health system.

Would you recommend this also, Liz? Just a suggestion.
Posted by Constance, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 6:05:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jewely,

The times I have seen niqab wearers, their partner is not at all equally clad. He can be wearing shorts and thongs.
Posted by Constance, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 6:15:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Connie:”The times I have seen niqab wearers, their partner is not at all equally clad. He can be wearing shorts and thongs.”

True that. I don’t wear what my hubby does either. But I think I get enough vitamin D.

Last time I was in the Middle East they were still selling facial lightening creams in the supermarkets, now there is a health risk. Burqa wearers having lower chance of skin cancers are all okay with me though. Might have even been why the whole thing started.
Posted by Jewely, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 6:34:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe the niqab wearer is wearing a thong beneath her shroud
or maybe nothing at all.
Can any Muslimahs tantalise us further on this point?

What would Mohammed want his wives or slave girls to wear under their freedom sacks?
My guess is nothing at all.
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 7:21:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We'll never know, Proxy :)
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 8:33:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bra and knickers only underneath for me and it was still too hot but 55C is a killer to go out in. I had flash silk abaya’s for going to the big fancy malls and plain ones for like the market place or local supermarket. Local women wore light long trousers and tops.

Nice restaurants you had rooms to eat in and in places like KFC you pulled a shower curtain type thing around the table. I was covered completely but the head part was like a giant bit of cloth you could remove (so you can eat) which took me awhile to learn to do it up all professionally.

Is there really no one from the Middle East on OLO? ...I guess I wouldn’t admit it here if I was either.

Hopefully your western male minds are now satisfied.
Posted by Jewely, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 9:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Hopefully your western male minds are now satisfied>>
That's a bit presumptuous.
How do you know we're not lesbian Muslims?
Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 10:05:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for flaming.]
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 10:41:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Hopefully your western male minds are now satisfied>>
"That's a bit presumptuous.
How do you know we're not lesbian Muslims?"

Just a wild guess Proxy. :P
Posted by Jewely, Tuesday, 21 December 2010 10:43:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@CONSTANCE - I think YOU need to read more!

Women only wear a burqa when they go out in public,(usually) not in their own homes/yards etc. So, they have plenty of opportunity to have sufficient access to the sun - only about 30 mins per day I understand, and preferably not in the hottest part of the day - or one could end up with skin cancer also! (This apparently is becoming more common with young people). A few minutes in the sun pulling out the weeds or playing with the kids is sufficent to keep the vitamins up to a required level!In fact, if these women go out in the hottest part of the day wearing a burqa, they'll probably protect their skin!

Even people with olive skin can end up with a melanoma! Depends on whether exposure has caused the cells to 'play up'?
Posted by Liz45, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 2:37:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Miz45,

You are pulling your 'facts' out of the air. See here,

"In a cohort of "healthy" Muslim women living in an urban Sydney community, we found severe vitamin D deficiency in 68%, hyperparathyroidism in 38.6% and high bone turnover in 46%."

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/177_03_050802/dia10809_fm.html
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 2:48:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45,

Sorry, the typo 'Miz' was accidental.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 2:52:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You'll also find, that there are a high number of other people with such results - although not that many know it. Some of us took the advice re keep out of the sun too seriously, and now are lacking essential benefits from the sun. I've heard of many people, particularly those who are elderly and not very mobile; also women with a few kids who are busy inside the house.

What is "high bone turnover"? Yes, I know, read the article. I will later. I'm finishing off a fully lined jacket for a friend of mine - it's a pressie for Xmas! It's a winter polar fleece one, and I know she'll love it!

I've started walking again recently,and while I avoid the really hot and dangerous time of the day, I know I'll benefit in many areas, including vitamin D. I'm involved with a Womens' Health Centre, and next yr we're focusing on heart disease, diabetes and weight problems, and I'll raise this issue then. Heart disease/strokes kill more women than all the cancers combined. I was surprised! We have many women from different cultural backgrounds - including the Middle East.Great women all!
Cheers. no prob about the Miz!
Posted by Liz45, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 3:07:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to Daniel Greenfield:

"The Burqa arose because of the need to distinguish between women who were married to Muslims and could not be touched, and all other women. By covering their bodies and faces, Muslim women showed that they were off limits. Other women on the other hand remained subject to assault. Rather than practice morality, Mohammed's men made a point of marking their 'property' with a brand. The Burqa was that brand. It still works that way today. When Australia's Grand Mufti justified the gang rape of Australian girls, he did it by comparing them to uncovered meat who were to blame for what happened to them. Women who adopt the Burqa and submit to Islam are moral. Those who do not are whores."
"Islam was Born Out of Child Abuse and Rape"
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/12/islam-was-born-out-of-child-abuse-and.html

While it might protect women from rape outside of marriage
the burga won't protect them from rape inside of marriage:

"Your women are your tilth,
Go into them when and how you will"
Koran 2:223

Does that mean that Allah authorises Muslim men to take off their (multiple) wive's burqas whenever they have the inclination?
No wonder so many men are converting to Islam!
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 8:04:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45,

You say you do have a problem with “ the sexualisation of women and girls though”.

The infantilisation and sexualisation of women is at the heart of the whole justification for women wearing burqas. It is the basis for the denial of education to girls. It is the justification behind the stoning of women and the multilation of girls genitals.

The spread of fundamentalist Islam is accelerating in the west. It is an undoubted fact that, whilst it may still be by choice that some women in the west wear burqas, there is no choice at all for many of their sisters. And those who might wear the burqa by choice today, are also likely to find( in the near future)that it will be impossible to stop.

How much of Sharia law, as espoused by the fundamentalists, are you willing to live under? Where do you draw the line? If the deciding factor on these issues is whether the minority group supports it, then there is no justification to deny Sharia, once the calls become loud enough. And there is plenty of support for it in key sectors of the Islamic community.

Finally, those who make the argument that men have no place discussing this issue are mistaken. Firstly ,the effect of this wedge politics by the muslim community, will be felt by all. Secondly, women are not expected (and would be outraged if they were) to limit themselves to female only issues.
Posted by PaulL, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 8:24:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,

You are not too convincing about reading much nor about the benefits of the BIG COVER UP. Why did you never respond to my earlier posts? Again, have you never heard of these women activists I mentioned who are now living in the West with real experience of living under Islam? I can only assume you don't read much. I know, ignorance is bliss, and it just may offend your feel-goodedness. Life can be pretty ugly, I know, but you need to face reality sometimes. You don't help things at all by condoning oppressive practices.

So all niqab wearers must have backyard. Okay. I would then suggest this condition be added on the health risk niqab tag. And what if they don't have a backyard - where would they go to then for healthy doses of sunshine? You know backyards are becoming extinct, don't you?

It seems small doses of sunshine are better than a 30 min hit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12013332

I forgot to mention heat rashes and heat exhaustion, or do they only get out in the Winter?
Posted by Constance, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 8:37:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jewely,

"Burqa wearers having lower chance of skin cancers are all okay with me though."

I seem to be hearing more that it can work in the reverse.

http://middlepath.com.au/qol/sunlight_vitamin-D_skin-cancer_suntan_sunburn.php
Posted by Constance, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 8:56:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Constance, from what I know of the culture and the individuals I have met; pale skin is sought after and considered more attractive – they wouldn’t go in the sun anyways.

I'm having trouble getting to links today... annoying!
Posted by Jewely, Thursday, 23 December 2010 7:24:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
When you said that the concept of freedom is a determining factor for certain legislation in the more civilised countries, I was curious as to which laws you were thinking.

I know of one law that has been passed by a Western parliament specifically in the name of freedom. The French republic, which they say stands for ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’ have passed a law against the wearing of the burqa (worn by perhaps 1 in 1000 of the French adult female Muslim population).

The justice minister said the law was a success for the values of liberty, equality, fraternity, and secularism.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/14/2952787.htm
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 23 December 2010 9:15:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Constance - It was leading up to christmas. Some of us were busy! I don't support oppressive practices, but there's more to the oppression of women and girls than the Middle East, or just the wearing of the burqa. I get frustrated with (some of)the views expressed here, that infer that it's only countries where the Islamic religion is evidenced that have oppressive policies for women.
What about the sexual abuse of women around the world? In the West? The attitude to women around the world harbours many unjust, oppressive and unjust laws, coupled with ingrained sexist/violent/oppressive/superior attitudes. Australia has an ingrained attitude via men, that is violent and negative. How about we start there? The wearing of the burqa by less than .01% of women is really focusing on the wrong areas. It's used by some to cloud the issue, and to cover their own at best old fashioned attitudes to women.
I recall Tony Abbott's view to paid parental leave? "over my dead body" he said. He put forward a different view prior to the election, but no certainty that he'd carry through if elected!
I've probably said before,that I'm involved with a women's health centre. Next yr we have a program about heart disease, diabetes and women's health. More women die from heart/strokes than all cancers combined. I think that this is a positive focus. None of the women I meet with would focus so long on the issue of women's choice re the wearing of a burqa - too many other more important issues to focus on!
We'd support an adult woman's right to choose!
Posted by Liz45, Monday, 27 December 2010 5:46:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I totally agree that it is unnecessarily divisive, Dan S de Merengue.

>>The justice minister said the law was a success for the values of liberty, equality, fraternity, and secularism.<<

The article you linked us to also pointed out that:

"Proponents say the ban asserts French values, but critics say it breaches human rights legislation and is being used as an election ploy. They say the government is exploiting a non-problem to appease anti-immigration voters.<<

Of course, such exploitation would never occur here in Australia, our politicians are above such sleazy opportunism, are they not.

C'mon, get real. It's just another dog-whistle. Peep peep.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 27 December 2010 6:02:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trying to follow what you're saying, Pericles.

Who were you saying that you agree with? It doesn't look like you agree with the French justice minister.

Did the justice minister get it right or get it wrong in ascribing to those stated values?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 2:43:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
......and in the end....all were the same colour.

Sorry! what century was this?......:)

Jokes Aside...I went back to an old city that once was full of one singled-minded people, that lived long-a-go.

But lucky for me....I found a time/machine.....that played a collective sound un-like I'd never heard before. ( this must of been a dream ) Well in this a-wakening.....all had seemed the out of date mind/sets...and when I rubbed my eyes....I found 40 races of people all living on the same planet...with all the same problems as all the signals that were showing to effect us all.

1....how do I talk to some one that's not me?

2....How do I talk to some one that's hotter than me?

3.... How/come it all works when some-one I don't know...is in trouble....and should I help?

Well the answer is yes you knob:)

In the end.....you will all have one colour......and how this will come-about.....its called human-evolution.

YES..YES...YES....Iam getting ahead of myself........or we can go backwards.

Its your world, and you have to live in it.

Women should be free to wear the burqa.........Sweet! These are some of the hotties females on the planet! If they want to cover up their femininity......their lost.

Look.........the female ate the fruit of life.......or what ever...and since we males can hold that part by definition.....if you want to cover your face.......do it! because no-one cares.

This the 21 is it not?

Go for it....be silly.....hide your female because some male says that the go?...........what bull/sh@t.

Your woman! and let it show!

if not....just shut up....and deal with your.....religion...LOL...we have no time for stupidity.

BLUE

Greens/BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 4:26:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,
That there are more important issues may or may not be true. But that doesn't help us to deal with the issue presently at hand, which is whether women should be wearing the burqa in public.

That only a small number of people want to wear it is also irrelevant. Only a small number of people want to sit naked whilst at the cricket, but there is still a law against it.

At the cricket yesterday, no member of the public (among 60 thousand) showed any intention of walking accross the playing field, but they were still publicizing a law against it, at pain of a $7000 fine. 

The numbers of those who might want to go against a law is irrelevant.    
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 7:50:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Dan - Now that's ironic! Your contrast between the burqa worn by a few,and a few sitting naked at the cricket?It apparently didn't strike you,that not many complain about the sexual exploitation of women's bodies with hardly any clothes on them; or when they're forced into anorexia by the fashion industry,but a few people get fired up over a woman being covered up from head to toe?
I agree with Pericles, that it's dog whistling!

If men are really concerned about the oppression of women,why don't they pause and think of the sexual violence too many men perpetrate against women around the world? the use of rape as another 'weapon' of war,with the perpetrators being men; the slave trade of both women and children for sex. I didn't hear the justice minister in France showing much concern about the violence perpetrated by the male populaton towards women. Why don't all men cease their sexist jokes; their demeaning language and behaviour towards women; the promotion of the exploitation of women in order to sell anything from magazines to cars to?

I find men's 'outrage' rather annoying at best, and on other occasions it just makes me angry!It wasn't that long ago when women had to leave permanent employment on marriage - that happened during my life time - and changed! There were many areas where girls and women were oppressed in this country and around the western world. Many areas improved, but there's still more work to do!

We have an ingrained male culture in Australia towards women that needs to change - in a big way. The physical and sexual abuse of women is a disgrace, which is all too frequently fueled by alcohol and minimised by the media. I recall some pretty grotty behaviour of male football players that have been shocking - too frequently the fans and management make excuses,and the media plays along! The few women wearing a burqa is a non-issue by comparison, fueled by racism and moral outrage - misplaced!

All men - never remain silent about violence towards women!
Posted by Liz45, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 10:23:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It doesn't work like that, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Who were you saying that you agree with? It doesn't look like you agree with the French justice minister. Did the justice minister get it right or get it wrong in ascribing to those stated values?<<

Unlike you, I can entertain more than one possibility at a time, and take a view based upon circumstances, rather than blindly impose some arbitrary set of absolute values.

The French justice minister was, in my opinion, being politically expedient, and used the dog-whistle term "égalité" to justify the decision to the voting public.

It is analogous to the way English soccer hooligans wrap themselves in the flag of St. George as they beat up Muslim kids, "defending our country" as they call it.

Any law of this nature will be deeply soused in political expediency. Even the Syrians, who have banned the burqa in universities, are using it as a control mechanism, knowing full well that the law will prevent devout Muslim women from gaining an education, thus keeping them at home and passive.

Life would be so intellectually sterile, would it not, if everything could always be resolved to black-and-white. But given your approach to life's little conundrums, I guess you wouldn't agree with that.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 11:04:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Pericles - Agreed. I share the view and rationale of Malalai Joya, Afghanistan activist. She hates wearing the burqa, but more than that she hates the whole system of justice and politics in her country. She believes in a secular govt, devoid of the oppression(of all people of Afghanistan, including the majority of men)and awful sexism/discrimination but most importantly the rapes, torture and murders. Men who disagree with these radicals are also killed. Malalai works within the confines that face her, and many women hide their 'weapons' like books and cameras under their burqas. If the govt of France is outraged by their perceived oppression of Muslim women in that country, why do they not speak out about the damage done to Muslim women in their own countries via our invasion and continued occupation. They didn't really give a damn about these women, probably never have, nor do those who push the same in this country.

The disgraceful behaviour at Cronulla a few yrs ago clearly showed the racist attitudes that had been fueled by Howard, and those who used it to enable them to invade a sovereign nation, that was no threat to its neighbours, let alone any country in the West. If I was a woman whose relatives had been killed or maimed in eitther Afghanistan or Iraq, I'd take a stand too! If wearing the burqa is only used by them as a protest - good for them! I wonder how I'd feel if I lived overseas, and saw countries reaping havoc in Australia! I'd be pretty angry and upset!

We should keep in mind, that we calmly discuss this issue from a privileged position. I can only imagine how those women feel, and how despondent, depressed and impotent their relatives here must feel. I'd feel more positive if many here called for us to get out of the Middle East, instead of focusing on an issue that really has no impact or import, in my view. I don't feel threatened by seeing women wearing the burqa!
Posted by Liz45, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 2:28:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45, "If I was a woman whose relatives had been killed or maimed in eitther Afghanistan or Iraq, I'd take a stand too! If wearing the burqa is only used by them as a protest - good for them!"

No, not good for them at all. The very last thing anyone should do is encourage people, especially the idealistic young, into the sort of oppositional beliefs and behaviour that could result in home grown extremism.

In Australia there is a host of legitimate means to influence decisions. It is wrong to encourage people to disengage from society because of perceptions that it does not pay off for them.

Again, through our freedom of speech and democratic processes there are many, many avenues available to influence decisions, but at the end of the day we must also accept the decisions that are made and the rule of law.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 4:13:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
The most interesting and important issues in life are not black-and-white. I don't think any among the many who have made thoughtful contributions to this intriguing discussion so far are unaware that this question is complex.

I don't think the French passed the law against the burqa simply for political expediency or vote catching. (Yet pleasing the wishes of the electorate is not automatically wrong in itself. It can be quite appropriate.)

This law should not be compared to hoodlums beating up on a Muslim kid to service their insecurities. The French burqa ban is not aimed at Islam per se, no more than laws against female circumcision/genital mutilation. 

Female circumcision is sometimes associated with some sections of Islam, but it's really a cultural thing and, to my knowledge, has no real connection with Islam. Laws against this practice should not be seen as laws attacking Islam. 

They are just a reflection of society's standards and values.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 28 December 2010 11:01:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you again for your considered opinions, Dan S de Merengue.

Predictably, I disagree with most of them.

>>I don't think any among the many who have made thoughtful contributions to this intriguing discussion so far are unaware that this question is complex.<<

Re-reading those contributions, it is clear that the vast majority have a distinctly black-and-white view of the topic. Views such as Shadow Minister's "I find myself torn on the issue" are few and far between, while the Bazz style of "I am insulted by the burqa", or Liz45's "I support women making their own choices" are quite frequent.

>>I don't think the French passed the law against the burqa simply for political expediency or vote catching.<<

I disagree. As do many other observers of France and its politics.

My view is that President Sarkozy was spooked by the popularity of Jean-Marie Le Pen in last March's election, and knee-jerked bills to expel the Roma and ban the burqa in quick succession - both highly popular measures with the far right wing factions.

Whom he will need in May 2012 to fend off another Segolene Royal challenge.

>>This law should not be compared to hoodlums beating up on a Muslim kid to service their insecurities.<<

I did not compare the laws themselves. The analogy was EDL's pretence of patriotism, via the flag of St George, with the Minister's appeal to the equally iconic French virtue of "égalité".

Vraiment, le sifflet pour chien, je crois.

>>The French burqa ban is not aimed at Islam per se, no more than laws against female circumcision/genital mutilation.<<

Yeah, right. Those are entirely analogous. On the one hand, the prohibition of an article of clothing that harms no-one. On the other, an assault causing actual bodily harm. I can see how you can easily confuse the two.

Nope. On second thoughts, I disagree there too.

>>They are just a reflection of society's standards and values.<<

Not really. Just of the quality of their politicians, and their expediency.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 5:02:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,

"All men - never remain silent about violence towards women! Right Liz - got that guys! You heard it from Liz. I know from your previous cracker rants, that you would be predictable, but you were so tempting. As usual, the fundy feminists let their Muslim sisters down and just become useful cranks. You sound like you'd invite trouble.

Health care - another diversion. Did you know that the Muslims in France wanted to try and change the French health system and segregate the sexes for treatment? They've already segregated toilets at La Trobe University here. What more are they going to want? Why does a 4% minority in our population get this special treatment? Are you all for living in parallel societies? Is that it?

It is time to take your rose coloured glasses off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJE2jOZYzwI
Posted by Constance, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 9:33:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

So would you say the same government political expediency was used for Syria’s cause of a burqa/niqab ban? A majority Muslim country with a strong secular state - staunchly secular like France. France is not England. And where are the European terrorist hubs based? – England (which you have previously denied). Where was it the Swedish citizen bomber was inspired? Not Sweden, was it? The French aren’t as careless (and numb) and fawning as the polies in the UK. Don’t you think Syria and even Turkey (banning head scarfs in public institutions) would have a better understanding of the niqab symbolism than yourself? Syria has legitimate concerns as this unnatural wear is on the increase everywhere and seems to be because of nationals returning from spending time in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. And what do they export apart from oil? You really are out of touch with the anxieties of the majority and portray yourself as a pompous moralizer.

Would you want to be taught by a teacher you can’t even see? You see this as an injustice of deprivation to them. What about the students they teach, et al? That is more of an injustice served. If their religion (not just a religion) is more important than their chance of engaging with society, they should just move to the Gulf States where they should feel more at home, instead of wallowing in their own self-inflicted miserableness in trying to live so insentively in secular societies. It is their choice, isn’t it? Anyway, if the niqab wearers really want education, I’m sure there are possibilities for education in the on-line education area if they really want to stick to it.

/Cont...
Posted by Constance, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 10:18:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

...Cont

Your use of the word describing the French Lower House Parliament as “sleazy” was an inapt and injurious overstatement. What a sleazy bunch the French must be. The French lower house of Parliament, the National Assembly, voted last week 335 to 1 to prohibit from public places all "clothing intended to hide the face,". You talk of sleaze? How strange. And you talk of control mechanisms and intellectual diversity but don't seem to care how cultural relativism can be so absurd. Muslims have already wiped off the Holocaust on the school curriculum in the UK.

Are you aware where of the origin of political correctness?
It may be of interest for you to know (if you don’t already) that the neologism ''political correctness'' was coined by Lenin in the early 1920's. He freely admitted that P.C. was synonymous with lying, and represented the prevalence of one ideology over another. So, Pericles, whose side are you on?

Lying – how interesting, and that PC is a Communist term. Sounds sleazy and controlling to me.
Posted by Constance, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 10:25:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear........its like watching/reading the Spanish inquisition:)

Since its inception the Spanish Inquisition has been controversial. In 1478 Ferdinand of Aragón (ruled 1471–1504) and Isabella of Castile (ruled 1474–1504) requested papal permission to establish the religious tribunals in Castile. Unlike the medieval papal Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition was a hybrid religious-secular institution under the authority of the crown, which appointed its officials and supervised its operation. The tribunals employed judicial procedures that were both contrary and offensive to existing Castilian legal practice. The establishment of the Spanish Inquisition in the kingdom of Aragón, which already had its own (albeit moribund) papal Inquisition, was seen as an affront to the kingdom's privileges, and one inquisitor was assassinated in the cathedral of Zaragoza in 1485. During the sixteenth century northern Protestants used the Inquisition as a cornerstone of the anti-Spanish propaganda campaign later dubbed the Black Legend. Even in its abolition the Inquisition was controversial, as it took three attempts to suppress the court, which lingered until 1834.

Since the fifteenth century the Inquisition has inspired a lively and sometimes lurid debate over the nature of its policies and practices.

And has the same here.

I guess some just love to live in the dark-ages.............not thats a bad thing........just old fashion......but nothing wrong with that now...is there?

Not too cryptic:) I hope:).... * Home
* Expand & Learn
* Look Up & Learn
* Invest & Grow
* Contact Us


BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Thursday, 30 December 2010 12:32:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HOME > LOOK UP & LEARN
V2 Vocabulary Building Dictionary

cryptic

adjective

Definition: mysterious and seeming to have a hidden meaning

Synonyms: enigmatic, obscure, secret, occult, mysterious, puzzling

Antonyms: clear, plain, obvious

Tips: Cryptic comes from the Greek word kruptos, "hidden." It may mean that something is secret and known only to a select group of people, or that a thing's meaning is hidden from plain view and requires decoding, almost as though it were a secret code. Cryptology is the study of codes and code-breaking.

Usage Examples:

Sally was puzzled at her secretary's cryptic message; she couldn't tell whether the meeting had been cancelled or moved to a different time. (obscure, puzzling)

The cryptic rites of the ancient Greek cult of Eleutheros were known only to the initiated. (secret, occult)

His cryptic behavior led me to believe that he was hiding a secret. (mysterious, puzzling)

Stop being so cryptic, and tell me what's going on. (obscure, secretive, puzzling)

BLU
Posted by Deep-Blue, Thursday, 30 December 2010 12:38:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lying – how interesting, and that PC is a Communist term. Sounds sleazy and controlling to me.
Posted by Constance, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 10:25:58 PM

Hey con-no....live with the old....cause no-one gives a :)

But the clock keeps on ticking:)

or Iam I out of order?

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Thursday, 30 December 2010 12:51:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I don't see how your opinion is less 'black-and-white' than mine or most others here. That's okay. We don't want people to fence sit. Don't worry about disagreeing with me. I'm quite used to you doing that.

I don't think I was confusing the two laws, the prohibition against facial coverings and that against female circumcision. I know they are quite different. But their commonality is that these laws are both sometimes (wrongly) perceived as being attacks directed towards a religion.

My overall point is that it is normal and expected that a society will codify into law its standards and values, especially those that uphold the wellbeing and integrity of each person.

Certain countries wish to enforce stricter standards of modesty. In the West we value the equality of both sexes and encourage their full and unashamed participation in society.      
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 30 December 2010 5:28:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Again!......it stills comes down from what all we....... you don't understand.

Women should be free to wear the burqa......the question is.....who and what owns the way we live.

Its racism....and all are not ready to mix........your just not ready yet.

And I mean it.

BLU
Posted by Deep-Blue, Saturday, 1 January 2011 3:48:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is racist, exactly, Blue? Your obtuse posting doesn't make it plain. It's racist to want to ban the burqa in Australia? What race was Islam, again? There could be anything under one of those mobile marquee tents. I used to have to remove my motorcycle helmet for security reasons in banks etc, burqas raise similar security issues. If Muslim men want their women to be out of the sight of infidels, they should think about the culture to which they're emigrating, and not try to impose mediaeval values on the rest of us. I feel sorry for any woman confined to this disgusting apparel, and wonder why western "feminists" spent a generation trying to figuratively castrate men while allowing a mysoginist culture free rein.
Posted by viking13, Saturday, 1 January 2011 8:18:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Jewelry - If you want to be responded to with any degree of seriousness about the oppression of women via the burqa, stop referring to women as "chicks"? All that does is give men ammunition to not take what we say or what we do with any degree of seriousness! We should also stop the childlike names such as 'patsy' or 'lizzy' or? Get the drift? When you start taking women's issues with some degree of seriousness and get rid of the 'cutesy' names, then I'll take you seriously too!

I'm in my 66th year. I've lived through some of the most revolting and unjust years of discrimination. As I've said earlier, I'm involved with a Women's Health Centre. I give not one fig for anyone using the anti-feminist argument against me. Why? I mix with lots of real women who, through their occupations, relationships and other life challenges, like caring for frail and/or very ill parents, have experienced areas of life, that I suggest, many on this post have yet to experience. I've raised kids and have grand kids!

I DO NOT find the wearing of the burqa by probably less than .01% of the female population any sort of threat! I have no argument with the probably majority of men in the Middle East who do not believe that women are worse than ants! My arguments are with all men from wherever they come from who believe, and live, that women(and sadly kids) are less important than ants! Sadly, too many of them live in Australia!

Let's get some perspective into the issues/realities that demean; trivialize and support the exploitation of women, both physically, sexually, politically, industrially and many others too numerous to mention.

@ Constance - Go and do some more reading!
Posted by Liz45, Saturday, 1 January 2011 5:36:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz,
As a feminist, how do you see the symbolism of the burka, in view of what it stands for in the societies where it is most often worn? 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 3 January 2011 5:39:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Dan -Go and read some of my earlier posts. This is just going round and round, and getting nowhere! The whole point is, that in my view, if women in Australia want to wear the burqa, for whatever reason - as a protest or? Good for them!

I hate oppression of anyone, anywhere in the world. If we ban the burqa here due to a few men who oppress women, why don't we ban alcohol due to those people who are abusing people; taking up time in Emergency Rooms, say at St Vincent's Sydney or? I'm really not too concerned about it. There's probably less than .01% of women either from the Middle east, or born to parents from the Middle East, that it's really not high on my list of priorities for the liberation of women in Australia! If we really do care about the rights and equality for and of women, let's look at the issues that really demean and cause anguish etc. The greatest danger to all women, particularly indigenous women is violence by an intimate partner or family member.

Then, let's stop the sexual violence perpetrated against all women and kids around the world! Let's not treat the wearing of the burqa in Australia with an importance that it doesn't warrant? It's a smokescreen to 'muslim bash' in my view! If we really cared about women in the Middle east, we'd get our troops out of their country and stop killing and maiming them, and their kids!We'd stop making excuses to invade these countries for the resources they contain, like OIL? We'd start telling the truth as to why we're still there, and why our Govt is lying to us! Read Wikileaks!
Posted by Liz45, Monday, 3 January 2011 5:52:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz45

Perhaps the thought has not occurred to you that you may be the one who is not listening, stuck on spouting the same old stuff rather, as if on a mission to convert the rest of us on the issue of the burqua.

Were you as concerned with freedom of expression as you claim to be you might show a little respect for the rights of others here to express their own opinions on these issues without repeatedly jumping to "correct" them as if the only perspective that matters is yours.
Posted by JanF, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 8:14:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Liz,
I also don't want to go around in circles, but I do like to clarify things. I can see that you are concerned for many women's issues, not the least being domestic violence. 

But in as much as you've answered my question, you agree with numerous others that the burqa is somewhat symbolic of men's oppression of women (but are nevertheless happy for women to display it).
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 8:40:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 44
  7. 45
  8. 46
  9. All

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