"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..