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/

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.

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?

@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!

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.

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