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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.