Can wearing the burqa be a free choice?

Yes, but how do we tell?

Can a woman with bruises on her face genuinely have run into a door? Yes she can.

While I agree with the premise that a women should have the right to choose whether she wears the Burqa, given that a woman coerced to wear the burqa is unlikely to state this, a ban gives her the right not to wear the burqa.

Interesting piece. Other than the over simplification of the gender aspects I liked it. Eg some see the full coverings as a statement of male inability to control themsleves rather than disgust at women's bodies.

Society does limit the freedom's of individuals based on others discomfort, try walking nude in a public place and see how well that freedom which does not "harm" others lasts.

It is clear that some of the full covering wearers in our society do so by their own choice. Some of those who do so have been raised as non-muslims and have converted so most of the arguments about culture etc become a big stretch.

If society has the right to impose minimum covering standards then it has the right to impose maximum covering standards. We certainlty have the right to impose some limit's on other activities (in the same way drink drivers don't belong on the road, those deliberately limiting their vision by the wearing of burqa's etc should not be driving motor vehicles).

I'd prefer not to see them banned but make it clear that it's a choice with logical consequences.

R0ber

Well said, Sascha:

Having experienced oppression for yourself, you had to arrive at the right conclusion. Today it's about something which you don't like; consider foolish; or don't particularly care about, but tomorrow it could be about the apple of your eye.

R0bert,

"If society has the right to impose minimum covering standards then it has the right to impose maximum covering standards"

- Indeed! It has neither!

There is a big difference between France and Australia. Our Polly's are gutless wonders in the end. Neither side has anybody of substance let alone someone of Conviction. I'm a lefty but I would rather see little Jonny back then the current lot.

The Burga should be banned full stop

I find it ironic that feminists lie Sascha once demanded that women should burn their bras, yet get all coy and enigmatic about whether women should burn their burkhas.

The only reason why Australia has not joined other European countries in banning the burkha, is because the problem of Muslim extremism in Australia is not as bad yet as in Europe. Burkhas are a symbol of militant Islam, in exactly the same way as the Swastika is to signify German racial superiority. I am sure that Sascha would be horrified by Nazi women walking down the street wearing swastikas armbands, so why is she so fuzzy about where she should stand about a symbol of Islamic cultural superiority?

It beggars the mind to even try to understand how an avowed feminist could in any way defend Islam. It is a religion which not only instructs its male adherents on the benefits of beating their wives, it even gives dimensions for correct rod size to use to beat her. Toss in "honour killings', the forced marriages of young Islamic women, and the fact that Bankstown hospital treats two Muslim girls every month for infections from forced circumcisions, and Sascha should be screaning her head off about Islam.

Everything she believes in as a feminist is diametrically opposed by Islam, yet all we get from Sascha is 1000 words of prevarication and philosophical musings.

The reason why you were sexually assaulted in Iran, Sascha, is because you as a woman do not behave in accordance with the dictates of Islam. This means that for Muslims, you just a "cat meat" slut who deserves to get raped by believers, and when that happens it is all your own fault.

Why you would want people who think like that to inhabit your own country is something which you might explain to kme?

"I am sure that Sascha would be horrified by Nazi women walking down the street wearing swastikas armbands"

And so would I - but that's no reason to make the practice illegal.

Ultimately, everyone is horrified by one thing or another, but if I ban what horrifies me, others may ban other things which may be crucial for my own life and principles.

"Why you would want people who think like that to inhabit your own country is something which you might explain to kme?"

I certainly don't want that, but what has my wants to do with legislation?

It is the health (lack of vitamin D) that concerns me more and is a significant health problem.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/vitamin-d-deficiency

However, peripheral vision may also be affected - I don't know. That could be important for road safety. Does anyone know for sure?

As for walking into doors, not very common, Shadow Minister. Generally an excuse for bruising brought about by domestic violence, ask any nurse working in emergency.

The wearing of the burqa holds distinct similarities to the early Chinese tradition of foot-binding - both appearing only to satisfy some male aspiration, and neither appearing to serve any female aspiration - save to satisfy male whim, and so improve the chances of attracting a husband. This certainly places the female in a role of subservience, and is a form of blackmail.

Both male and female in so many cultures utilise various forms of external adornment to enhance their individual attractiveness to the opposite sex, and it would appear that the burqa may serve a similar purpose - by representing a certain innocence and respectability of the wearer. One cannot fail to observe, however, that whereas in so many cultures the use of adornment by the female is exclusively within her power and is to serve her own aspirations, in the case of the burqa it can only be concluded that the female has no real choice, and the purpose is principally a matter of subservience to male dictates.

Some may use the burqa to hide their features out of feelings either of embarrassment or shyness. Such motivation can display a lack of self-confidence, and a lack of individual freedom for self-actualisation. Such motivation would again confirm a subservience to a male construct of attractiveness and self-worth - and should be considered alien in our western liberalised society.

One may not ignore the religious aspect of the wearing of the burqa, so apparent in areas where sharia law is strictly enforced. The west has been loathe to declare any religious movements illegal, but this is not unknown where practices have been proven to be contrary to accepted morality or to the exercise of individual liberties.

Those who have no ill-intent, have no need to obscure their faces - whether by helmet, hoodie, pantie-hose or mask - and move freely and with confidence in our society. Similar freedom should apply to all, and the burqa should therefore be held to be unacceptable and out of place in a truly "free" society.

"and the burqa should therefore be held to be unacceptable and out of place in a truly "free" society."

Perhaps so: it's OK to let the burqa be considered socially "unacceptable" and out of place, it's OK to hold it in contempt, so long as it is not made illegal. The state has no right to create any type of society - not even a "free" society - that's an abuse of power called "social engineering" and the state, being an involuntary organization has no right to impose anything on people who expressed no desire in the first place to be engineered by it.

One may leave one's oppressive family, one may leave one's oppressive organized-religion, one may leave their oppressive mates, but how can one leave the state (except into the jaws of another state)?

So better live in a free state with a not-truly-free society than in a free society under a not-truly-free state.

why don't we ban budgie smugglers, fatties wearing bikinis or bare mid-riffs, little girl beauty competitions, and so on. Whatever offends us. After-all why stop at burqas. There's all sorts of clothing that someone can inevitably find offensive. From see-through blouses or revealing tops to tight short shorts - to naked buttocks being flashed. If we expect that we can wear what we like in our society - then why do we draw the line at other people not being able to do the same. I agree it should be a matter of choice - providing that no-one is being intimidated or forced to do so.

Has anyone noticed the news about the woman in the burqa who has her conviction for lodging a false complaint against police quashed, because the police could not prove it was she who lodged the complaint. She, (well we must presume it was she) has now lodged a claim for costs against the police.

This woman is protected by our laws, and apparently the police are powerless in their attempts to identify her, she refuses to remove her burqa (although in a Muslim country she would have to) so they can verify her identity visually, they can't use finger prints, it seems hers aren't on file.

So from here on any person in a burqa will be able to challenge any traffic fine, or for that matter any infringement because the identity of the miscreant cannot be verified. Now that is freedom!!

Yuyutsu,

To me, the use of the burqa represents neither a truly "free" society nor a truly "free" State - for to me the burqa represents a denial of freedom for the females involved, and an abuse of power by the men involved. Irrespective of the motivations involved, the result is the females are either brainwashed, coerced or dis-empowered. The females may think they are exercising free choice, but my feeling is that, like captives, they are actually demonstrating an illusion of free concurrence with the will of the oppressor, when the reality is that they unconsciously live in fear.

Some of course may be reveling in the expression of their individuality. I would contend that they could find another way, and one not so confronting to our common understanding of the bounds of freedom of expression.

You seem to contend that individuals are always free to move away, to choose not to comply, but is this being truly realistic?

This issue may not be directly comparable with female circumcision, but I feel there are parallels. There is a point where lines must be drawn.

Where should the line be drawn to protect people from an oppression that they themselves do not recognise or acknowledge? That is the question.

I freely admit that I am prejudiced against any and all religious practices which endeavour to set people apart. Cultural differences, freely chosen and willingly and happily expressed are quite a different matter, and should be embraced. Oppressive and divisive practices, however, should be opposed, wherever they are found. At least, for better or for worse, this is my opinion.

"for to me the burqa represents a denial of freedom for the females involved, and an abuse of power by the men involved. Irrespective of the motivations involved, the result is the females are either brainwashed, coerced or dis-empowered"

We've got muslim women quite forcefully saying that for many it's their choice. We have examples of Australian born converts to Islam choosing that attire, we don't have as far as I'm aware any credible evidence that it's often about men oppressing women but some still insist in seeing it in those terms.

I don't think that the issue is nearly as simple as some want to see it. There probably is some cases of coercion, possible some "brainwashing" but there is also an opportunity to make a statement that's hard to miss.

It's a chance to announce yourself as more devoted to your faith than those who make different choices. It's a chance to remind the non-believers that you are different. It's a statement about men's alleged poor self control.

It may be convenient to dismiss the whole thing as male oppression of women but I don't think it's realistic.

R0bert

Dear Saltpetre,

"To me, the use of the burqa represents neither a truly "free" society nor a truly "free" State..."

-Agreed. I don't think there are many who think otherwise and that may allow you to feel contempt towards the burqa, but not to take arms against it (which is effectively what legislation+policing does).

"You seem to contend that individuals are always free to move away, to choose not to comply, but is this being truly realistic?"

-That's not the point. Some are relatively more free, others less, but does it give you any right to use force against people who at the time strongly resist your efforts to change them?

(P.S. in an absolute sense we all are totally free, some are more aware of it than others, but that's beyond the context of this discussion)

"Where should the line be drawn to protect people from an oppression that they themselves do not recognise or acknowledge? That is the question."

-A good question indeed! You have the right to try to educate them (not by force of course), but no right to shoot them (which is ultimately what the police will do if they keep resisting). Some people just need to learn at their own pace.

From a moral/spiritual perspective, while it is commendable to help others, it is only optional, it's nice if you can. Avoiding violence (ahimsa), on the other hand, avoiding oppressing others, is the primary principle which always comes first.

"Oppressive and divisive practices, however, should be opposed"

-Certainly so, but not in the way of creating counter-oppression through legislation.

ONE EXCEPTION:

If you are a saint or thereabouts and were personally called by God to release the oppressed, then forget everything I wrote and get on with your duty.

However, the state is nothing but saintly, the state is a secular institution of very questionable morals. I find it hard to believe that such a delicate role would be divinely assigned to such a crude instrument.

Part of the brain contains the Amygdalae. These have many functions but one specific function is to assess faces of people when conversing with them - a two way process.

This brain function is denied and it is no wonder that many people feel affronted and confronted by those wearing the burqa.

We have already had burqa and hidjab problems and in one case a burqa wearing female (are we positive of the sex of the wearer?) claiming harassment when video camera evidence showed that she was lying.

Muslim 'tradition' calls for stoning of women/genital mutilation/honour killing/identity erasure by burqa & hidjab. All intended to achieve the complete and utter subjugation of women.

The burqa should be banned in Australia.

Living in a modern society involves rights and obligations. Anybody can wear anything that they like, but consideration of rights and obligations shows that there are (and must be) limits.

For example, if 20,000 Sydneysiders suddenly decided to hide their identity by using balaclavas, I think that the security/safety issues would soon become apparent. As I understand it, you would not be allowed to pass any security checkpoint wearing a balaclava (or motorcycle helmet) and nor could you go into a bank.

Similarly, the full niqab outfit would seem to be a useful disguise and cover for somebody showing malintent. It is not unreasonable for the police (and other authorised security personnel) to have the right to require that the person hiding under the cover be required to identify themselves.

By the way, to me it is for the same reason that we should all be required to identify ourselves when we present ourselves to the voting booth, or to Centrelink, or in any other situation where we are interacting with society.

A feminist wearing burqa is like a holocaust survivor wearing a swastika.

They have the right to do so, but I doubt they would really want to.

This satirical, whimsical piece of abhorrence, is just so typical of avant-garde feminist today.

I sincerely thought, we saw the last of cultural cringe Germain Greer & her kith and kin. When she went all pukka because she couldn't tolerate her own Countrymen / women. Country bumpkins - who lacked finesse, Pommy culture, and a Cambridge accent - with plum. She's not alone : Russel Crowe, Geoffrey Robertson, Dame Edna, Susan Renouf, Cheryl Kernot etc can't / couldn't abide out quaint characteristic larrikinism, nor the viral double-entre, uncouthness, so evident in mainstream Oz.

I have never been an ardent Francophile. Not because they eat grubby snails, or urinate / fornicate in Public; nor the salient fact they deport Gypsies, Basques, Algerians, Guiana's, Vietnamese etc, even though these same people served in the Armed Forces, and fought France's unholy War, to the Death. Their infamous Foreign Legion, is proof positive mercenaries can die for the Tri-colors, yet are denied permanent residency or a miserably pension for Life ?

The Brits still haven't forgiven the Vinchy French for their debauched treachery.

The zeitgeist BURKA has a history, long before Islam originated. The Quran ( Holy Book )mentions it, in 100/200 AD. The Muslim World exhorts women to dress and behave modestly in Public. Preventing women from being seen by men. Honour, attention, respect & modesty is systemic in an Islamic household. Little has changed. Men still rule, and define Life - stoning, whipping etc is still practiced in the Middle East and elsewhere. One can, to a great extent sypathise with Muslim-Australian women, who risk life and limb daily, should they dare venture to break from tradition/ religion, and exacerbate the condemnation of Fathers, brothers, spouses etc. Women are treated as chattles. Child brides are traded for dowries. FGM - female genital mutilation, is still an accepted fact of Life.

Obsequious UK Immigration Minister, Damien Bunning recently put to rest, this contentious issue, once and for all, by equivocally claiming it was " unBritish " to support the banning of the burqua,hijab,niqab per see. By all accounts, it wasn't a Westminster
cont..

System landmark case. It would have created an almighty furor.

In a true Democracy, it is easier said than done, to justify and dictate, how women should dress. The " slutwalk " saga, in Melbourne, was an unmitigated calamity !

No one has ever condemned his holiness the Dalai Lama, for his outfit. Nun's habits, masks, m/c helmets, fencing face-masks, ski face protectors etc, hardly raise a heckle.
Susan Callagher's miffed outrage, is an reenactment of a case before a NSW Court, where a woman in burka, was finally arrested by a Policeman ( who evidently didn't know the Law ) after apprehending her, for a minor traffic violation. Premier O'Farrell, has since indicated, finger printing suspects ?? as a substitute ? Weird.

A gendarme can arrest anyone he/she suspects of breaking the Law, and is authorized to use force eg. handcuffs, handgun etc, in making the arrest anywhere in the State.

Tellingly, the Supreme Court, if put to the test, will rule it unconstitutional. Without merit, and against the guaranteed freedoms of association, religion, speech etc. Any Constitutional amendment must be approved by a Referendum, which is unlikely. So much, for a lost cause-celebre. The audacious " bikie gang laws " was recently declared invalid - so much for Attorney Generals in SA, Qld, NSW, - who frame legislation, launch appeals, appoint Magistrates, and generally restore Community confidence in the Courts, across the Land.

Wearing the full covering is truly liberating for women, when more women realize its potential I predict that it will become a fashon statement (and we all know that fashon thrives on female stupidity).
No more bad hair days; why worry about pimples or facial hair.
Those women who need to shave on a regular basis will be freed of the necessity to cover over their barbers' rash and or razor nicks.

You get up in the morning looking like death warmed up but you've got no sickies left?
Who cares, on with a fresh tent and you're lookin' good.

This style of clothing may be monotonous but think of the visual improvements, all those fat and/or ugly women who now appear in public in frightening reality will be but part of an anonomous mass.

Think too of the husbands, they will be able to benifit, along with their Muslim brothers, in that almost no one will be knowing that they lost out in the mating game or that they regularly bash their wives, equally the wife doesn't have to miss work because of a fat lip or bruises in general.

The hijab/burga/whatever is democratic, or at least socialist, in that it gives the less appealing women a chance at the level playing field.

Would you be ok with a burka wearing person behind you in a que at a bank, or anywhere else for that matter. You can not assume the person in the burka is a female.

Sure you can make that assumption, you might be wrong though.

If we go to a foreign country we have to observe their law, customs and culture - so it is only reasonable for us to expect the same.
Face recognition software has been developed for security and combating crime, and the human brain has face recognition capability to read and respond to facial expression during communication and interaction - to respond to intent, honesty or deception, welcome or threat.
If people generally, or a portion of our society, decided to go out wearing balaclava's or face scarves with only eyes showing, we would expect our laws to be changed to ban such attire - for public security.
Camouflage is associated with hunting or criminal intent, not with openness and honesty.
Anyone could be hiding under a burqa, perhaps a raving suicide bomber rather than the expected modest female - who is to know?

In a society or culture which condones "honour" killings and the stoning of females for adultery (but treats the male accomplices as innocent "injured" parties), is it any wonder that young males have little respect for females (except "in their place"), and think that any female not dressed in mufti is just asking to be raped? Is not the wearing of the burqa directly associated with such behaviour and attitudes? Are such attitudes acceptable to Oz society?
In strict Islamic countries it is the religion rather than the state which rules, and what we could consider to be "vigilantes" enforce the "religious law" at will, and as "expected" behaviour. Such behaviour and attitude is also alien to Oz society.

France stood up for its culture, and for the outlawing of the unacceptable "attitudes" and connotations associated with face covering. Oz also needs to stand on its moral values and do likewise.

Oz has a culture of openness worthy of universal acclaim, and which is something to be valued and protected. Whether tourist, visitor, immigrant or refugee, all should be expected to conform to our cultural norms, and to leave all feuds, prejudices and unacceptable attitudes and customs at home - or just don't come!

Just one little point,KNO3,

"Camouflage is associated with hunting or criminal intent, not with openness and honesty"

Camouflage is associated with our Armed Forces in that they generally wear uniforms in camoflage pattern and theirs' is an honourable profession, hunting is also honourable; I have never known of criminals wearing camoflage.

Camoflage is also a naturally occuring defence/hunting colouration among many species of plant and animal.

Perhaps the word that you want is 'disguise'?

a597

>> You can not assume the person in the burka is a female. <<

It is far easier to run or fight in a ski mask and jeans than swathed head to foot in material. Just try running in an ankle length skirt - let alone having one's face completely covered, limiting peripheral vision.

....and strap-on bombs can be more easily hidden under a loose jacket - just before you get going on that one.

I say it is a womans right to see and be seen. This is not a moslem country, when in Rome do what the Romans do. You can not tell me the head to toe garment is a healthy item.
When western women go to islamic countries they are expected to cover up. When moslem women come here they say we are racist for wanting to see the delights of a womans face. So i am not so sure about the racist bit. Indonesian women are far more progressive than Arabs will ever be.
You need to stand up for your freedom in a free country, or else you may as well be in bagdad.

I heard today that in my city they are considering banning hoodies from certain shops. That is, if you walk into a shop, you have to take off your hood. Though I love my hoodie, I would happily comply with this rule. It smacks of common sense.

However, there’s not lot of common sense in Sascha’s article. It smacks of someone who has spent too much time in philosophy class (‘in the liberal tradition of JS Mill’) and not enough time on the streets. While we can all pontificate about a person being free to do whatever they want so as long as no-one else is harmed, this doesn’t begin to address the question. It just throws it back onto the definition of ‘harm’, what, when, why, and to whom.

She shows that our present feminists have lost their way in philosophical malaise. Only the French have the fiber to make a stand on what they value. Sascha concludes by saying, “the best we can do is to encourage.” Yet that is one function of law, to encourage people to follow what we value in society.

The value in this indecisive non-article is in its demonstration of the emptiness of liberal thinking.

Having lived in the Middle East and being told by a senior Iman that the Burka is no more than a "raincoat for the desert" I wonder why this side of the argument is never riased.

In his lecture the Iman told us that when Arabs lived or live in the desert and you leave your home you often need protection from the weather - sand storms, extreme heat etc. to protect your otherwise fine garments. In other words it is like a raincoat for the desert. A very practical garment for a very demanding climate.

But when did we last have a sand storm in Sydney? The garment has been kidnapped and turned into a religious and political instruement.

It is like the Islamic call to pray. Sounded out 5 times a day to call people to the Mosque. Christians once used a bell in the village for the same purpose. However, once we started using clocks and watches we no longer needed the bell for this purpose - we moved on. The muslims emain caught up again in hsitory. What was practical has been again highjacked for other purposes.

There is nothing wrong with a burka in the right climate - I wore the equivalent in 50+ temperatures and sandstorms, but to wear in Australia is unreasonable and not necessary.
Why continue unless you only wish to inflame public opinion.

Well put DG50.

This issue, and so many others, highlight just how enslaved mankind seems to be to an undeniable need to "belong" to a "group", to embrace "group-think", to separate from the mass of mankind and stand out by embracing a familiar "identity" of self within a distinctive culture or ideology. After thousands of years of "civilisation" Mankind still does not seem capable of relating to a "human identity".

"We" do not seem to have moved very far from hunting or gathering as a group, farming as a group, or fighting adjacent tribes, clans, intruders or threats as a group. Every group has adopted distinctive dress, "makeup" or ornamentation so as to be immediately recognisable to friend or foe, and we continue thus, in a continuous fundamental struggle for survival - of the "fittest"?

"We" have many "groups" in our lives - community/street/town/state, nationality, ethnic, religious, family, sport/pastime/hobby, work, profession, industry, friends... However, underlying these, we ultimately identify with one principal group - which ties us to a larger group with which we may have little direct involvement - a group best confirming our sense of self.

It is no wonder we have workplace courses in conflict resolution, for everywhere in our lives there is constant example of striving for place, for superiority, an us/them theme to our lives - industrial relations, union/employer, political, council, state, locality or profession, and ultimately, wealth and accouterments.

There are consequently times when I even have to think that communism may be the only possible solution to this destructive drive for differentiation and superiority over one's peers and competitors, and which is preventing the individual from embracing "Mankind".