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".