The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > To hijab or not to hijab? > Comments

To hijab or not to hijab? : Comments

By Leslie Cannold, published 18/10/2005

Leslie Cannold considers the spiritual, cultural and political meaning of the hijab and other religious symbols.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Here we go again! Don't you academics have anything better to do than to go around meddling in other people's business?

Now I'm a bloke and if I want to wear a hijab, then I bloody-well will. But I don't want to - yet. But then, if this nonsensical rubbish of a discussion keeps going on, I might just get the urge.

Simple, no ethics involved, no need to bite lip, hum or hah or worry. What people wear or don't wear is their own business. You don't have to like it, but in a multicultural, diverse society you do have to tolerate it, by law.

Move on Leslie, get over it, get a life and start doing some kind of real work instead of worrying about other people's business.
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 9:51:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“But feminism has also taught me to look for the power. And while power struggles are constantly in play in relationships between the genders, it is the motivating thirst that rarely speaks its name in debates about the hijab.”

If the author has mixed feelings regards the hijab, then she will have to get used to seeing it more often, with many countries throughout Europe at least, expected to have predominately Muslim populations within coming decades. This includes France, and can alsoinclude the UK.

Eg.
Two factors mainly contribute to this world-shaking development.

· The hollowing out of Christianity. Europe is increasingly a post-Christian society, one with a diminishing connection to its tradition or its historic values.
· An anemic birth rate. Indigenous Europeans are dying out. Sustaining a population requires each woman on average to bear 2.1 children; in the European Union, the overall rate is a one-third short, at 1.5 per woman, and falling.

Into the void are coming Islam and Muslims. As Christianity falters, Islam is robust, assertive, and ambitious. As Europeans under-reproduce at advanced ages, Muslims do so in large numbers while young.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13340

A Marxist / Fminist and secular type society, (which seeks to do away with marriage, the nuclear family, religion, the word “father” etc), ultimately does not produce enough children to sustain itself, and normally it is replaced by a more conservative, and often more religious type of society.

In the case of many countries within Europe at least, they will likely become Muslim countries. Ironic in a way as many feminists do not seem to like Islamism.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 9:55:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed Maximus: I agree to a point. But I dont agree academics should pull int here collectice heads; free speech and all that - but really, it must have been a slow day in the philsophers tea room the day Leslie knocked up this piece.

Lets have a go at nuns; now there's an oppressive habit ( habit! get it?) my aunt was a nun. I didnt know she had hair or legs until the mid seventies when her uniform changed. And priests ! lets defrock the buggers. There could be evil lurking behind all the gear they wear.

I want to hear what muslim women want - then I might give a hoot; from my understanding some wear em and some do not some are forced to and some are not - but dont tell me Islaminc dress codes are any more demeaning for example than the annual frock shock masquerading as the Brownlow night when the young trophy brides of footballers feel compelled to spend half of Malawis GDP on some rag with a name attached, or women who yearn to walk around in high heels or with a piece of dental floss up their butt

Where will this obsession with things Islamic end? Like Maximus its nearly enuff to make you slip into a burkha or even convert.

Give it a rest Leslie - having a go at muslim practices is soooo yesterday.
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 10:11:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leslie,
Wonderful, thoughtful and searching article as usual.
I have struggled with the same issues myself, but come to a different conclusion. In the end, if I believe that women must be free to express themselves as they see fit, to wear whatever they choose to wear, to speak, behave and do what they want (while respecting others right to do the same, of course), then I must support a woman's right to wear the hijab.
I reserve the right to disagree with them vigorously and to challenge their reasons, but I have no right to legislate against their choice, however much I personally disagree with it.
Nevertheless, I totally take your point.
Did you read "The Invisible Hijab" earlier on this site? You might like it.
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 10:19:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Some schools outlaw haircuts, ear rings and other items which detract from the uniform, although this should not be viewed in the same light, it is a dress standard which has been enforced for many years, that as a private institution, they have the right to do.

If the school feels it is fragmenting thier dress standards, so be it. If it is not acceptable to the student, they can select another school that is more sympathetic.

As much as we all wish it, the world is not fair. Sometimes if you want to do something, such as attend a school of your liking, you have to mould with it. The standards set by this institution must be adhered to.

If a school served only pork and i was jewish for example, i would go elsewhere instead of disrespecting my values. You have a right to change to a place that embraces your values.

I am sure if there were a strong population on Muslim's in the school, the school would be more sensitive and understanding to these issues.

Schools have a right to protect their traditions. As an institution, especially a private school, they have the right.

Government schools are a different kettle of fish, they should respect all religious values and be very sensitive to this. Many people in public schools do not have this right to choose.

In summary, private schools have the right to uphold the subject dress standards, government schools do not.

Problem Solved. Next issue please.
Posted by Realist, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 10:29:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A well-reasoned article. One about school-kids.
What adults want to do in relation to cross-dressing, public flying of cultural flags or whatever, is a different matter.
Give the kids a chance to mix on equal terms; to swap their vegemite sandwiches with others' garlic and gorgonzola or whatever. Unleash them from the divisiveness demanded by parents afraid of their children viewing the world outside the cage of their own atavism.
If parents demand such restrictions upon the education of their children, let them enrol their offspring in private schools - hopefully un-subsidised by taxpayer funding.
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 10:31:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leslie,

Good and timely article,

A minor correction however, your assumption of Hijab being social pressure by men or fathers is valid in some cases. Large number of women chooses to wear it for orthodoxy and compliance and it is irrelevant whether a husband or father approves it or not.

Another myth I would like to correct is the meaning of Hijab as a dress code is for men and women to dress moderately of what is non-transparent and non-descriptive of the body. It is not women only and it is not headscarf only. The hijab, for example, cannot be a headscarf on a tight jeans.

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 10:39:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual a well reasoned article, no wonder Leslie Cannold is the thinking woman's hero.

State schools often have a poster that says something like "You have no say over where you come from, what happened in the past but you are responsible for your actions and your future".

In Australia girls aged 3 are sometimes forced to wear hijab - that headscarf marks them apart from their neighbours and if its worn with flowing dress will restrict their movement, their ability to climb trees, run, play in the creek, hone their hand to eye coordination. In the most extreme circumstances moslem female garb works to isolate women from the world that surrounds them. In Morrocco when women meet inside their homes they remove their hijab.

As hijab is something that moslem women can elect to adopt at puberty, I see no problem with banning it from school uniform, and when the young women leave school then they can adopt hijab if that is still their desire.

As a woman who was denied a home loan because of gender, I fear that women who adopt hijab will be prejudged as second class citizens and find their life choices are set by their clothing.

I agree that the school calandar timetablers could set school holidays to show more sensitivity to Jewish and Muslim as well as Christian holy days but in the final analysis it might not be relevant for Tasmanian schools to observe Jewish holidays given the size of that religious group in that state.
Posted by sand between my toes, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 10:52:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just because the hijab is a symbol of cultural oppression in some countries does not mean it cannot be a symbol of secular oppression if it is banned in this country. I don’t suppose you watched the sbs documentary on the implementation of the policy in France, you would have realised that these young girls are fighting for their right to respect their god. How would you like it if churches were shutdown to prevent Christians not mixing with people of other religions on Sundays?

What you people seem to forget is that Muslims pay taxes as well so what right do you have to say that they cannot respect their god in these schools.

In conclusion, if you ban the hijab in public schools you will be no better than those who stone to death women for not wearing it.
Posted by DLC, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 11:19:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The whys and wherefores of wearing a headscarf are irrelevant. Muslims put around so many conflicting arguments for it - it's required by Allah, it's my choice and so on - that we will never know the reasons they really wear the things. And, who cares anyway?

What is relevant is that, while there is probably no problem with anyone wearing what they wish in their private lives, there is a problem with immigrants and minorities not conforming with the standards and requirements of the host population, in the way of school uniforms, for instance. Muslim children attending private schools are not permitted by those schools to wear any item of apparel not to conforming to school uniform standards, just like any other child. If one group of Muslims can conform, so can the others. But, in the case of school uniform in state schools, it seems that the 'compulsory' wearing of uniforms is pure bluff.

With lefty teachers and ALP state governments, a few Muslim kids, like a few mainstream kids, kick over the traces and challenge the system and get away with it, and the public education drifts further into chaos.

Some people are sick and tired of the headscarf business, and this is understandable. But while it is used as a symbol, there will always be conjecture. Let's hope it doesn't turn into anything worse.
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 11:19:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DLC, I really could not care about the hijab but enforcing school uniforms is not the same as closing churches. Banning christian kids from wearing christian tee shirts at school might be a better example.

For all involved in the debate it should be remembered that society regularly limits the freedom of individuals to dress as they choose. I noticed in the paper on the weekend that Sunshine Coast police have been prosecuting nude bathers at what sounds like a fairly secluded beach. Just because something is dressed up as religion it should carry no more weight than anothers choices.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 11:47:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we take as a given the hypothesis that these girls have highly religious parents or that they are repressed second-class citizens in their community, then I think we have to accept also that banning hijabs (in state funded schools) might result in

- more muslim girls going to a religious idependent schools
- some muslim girls getting sub-standard home schooling
- some muslim parents resisting the orders facing
legal battles and even jail

None of these outcomes seem positive. I'd suggest that the only families that would quietly accept a ban might be those who are "moderate" in the first place.

In short, I argue that the proposal is potentially deterimental to the community and the girls in question.
Posted by WhiteWombat, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 11:56:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed. Ban something and you make it even more of a political statement.

Just make a scarf an optional part of the uniform. Like choosing to wear the jumper or the windcheater- which ever you prefer, so long as it is the right colour and has the school logo.

Anyway, don't we rail against Saudi Arabia etc for 'repressing choice'- if we attempt to ban girls from wearing scarves over their hair, arn't we being incredibly hypocritical?
Posted by Laurie, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 12:12:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...Jewish and Muslim holy days should join Christmas and Easter as official school holidays."

I really can't agree that embracing a multicultural australia involves observing every religion's holy days as holidays. Can you imagine if this were introduced in the workplace (which would happen if introduced at schools). If anything, we should have the same generic holidays for everybody, when we can celebrate any religion we choose.
Posted by lisamaree, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 12:13:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To sneekeepete - Yo, good sense of humour.
To sand between my toes - I respectfully suggest you wash them.

But look at all this nonsense about what women wear. Oooh, it's sending messages. Oooh, it's going to corrupt political correctness. Oooh, it's going to set women's rights back 2000 years. Oooh, it might offend the delicate sensitivities of we-feminists. Oooh, it's going to mess with the brains of our kids. Oooh, oooh, etc, etc. And the rubbish keeps going on.

All unsubstantiated fears.

The real problem here is the demonstration of the hypocrisy of Marxist/feminists' so-called championing of diversity. This hijab wearing diversity is outside their tolerance zone. It threatens their precious anti-religious and anti-traditional-family doctrine. The bigots are worried that it might rub off on to the general population and become accepted. They're worried that people might start to think outside their square of social limitations. They're terrified of true diversity and terrified of free thinkers.

This discussion is nothing but a display of prejudice and intolerance. And that's what it's all about, leftist prejudice and intolerance - just like it was in France recently and the very same thing in Nazi Germany of the past.

And especially you Leslie, shouldn't have the slightest problem with women wearing the hijab or anything else they want.
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 12:26:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus,
I would agree that much of feminism is total hypocrisy, but feminists are basically a dieing breed, because they aren’t reproducing enough (being highly anti-male, anti-family, and quite anti-children).

This article mentions France, and I followed the developments in France for a little while, and the situation was quite interesting.

There is a growing number of Muslim youth in France, and Muslim girls were beginning to wear the Hijab to secular or state schools. This started some debate as to whether or not the Hijab was a religious symbol, as religious symbols are not accepted in those schools. Various historians were contacted, and it appears that the Hijab is indicative of Islam, but not entirely.

Most Muslim people have dark hair, and there is some belief that a scarf (which latter became the Hijab) was originally used by women to cover up greying hair (as in earlier times there wasn’t hair dye). In time, it became traditional or customary for many Muslim women to wear the Hijab, or some other form of dress to cover their hair. So vanity, as well as religion or tradition could be involved.

The situation in France is interesting in another way. In census and other forms, information about a person’s religion could not be gathered (by law). However it became noticeable, that Muslim children were being born at about 3 times the rate as non-Muslim children, and the government began to fear that France would become a Muslim country in 30- 50 yrs time. So the government has begun to give highly generous payments to mothers to have more babies (eg large payments upon birth of third child, almost a doubling of child allowance for the third child, paid maternity leave up to 40 wks for a third child etc)

This is in a country that has a comparatively high birth rate of 1.9 (ie above Australia’s). It is obvious that the government is trying to ward off the time France becomes Muslim. So there is discrimination involved, but in this case, it suits feminists.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 2:21:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Off-topic slightly, but oh well: Timkins, feminists are not a dying breed- just many women don't like to use the term as they know it will invite ridicule. Every girl who goes to university or tafe, who gets a job outside of the home, who contributes to her family income, who is not limited in her career choice by being told "no darling, you're a girl, you'll be a mummy instead", who is a legal person in her own right, and who votes without considering it a luxury, is a feminist. We are just lucky enough that these privileges have become common enough that women no longer need to associate them with a specific political movement, as they are now, thankfully, expected and accepted as basic rights. Huzzah feminism!
Posted by Laurie, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 2:40:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Last time I looked I wasn't dying (well, no faster than anyone else, anyway) and I have certainly bred two more feminists, as have my two sisters (two feminists apiece, I'm afraid, Timkins), who will definitely breed more, until we eventually take over the universe Woahahahaha!! (that's meant to be a mad scientist laugh, by the way.) And you can ridicule me for being a feminist all you like, I'll ridicule you right back.
Funny old Timkins (no, you may not be actually old, I use it as a term of endearment) I grow quite fond of you, but I suspect you do not return the compliment.
Some of us feminists are really quite nice once you get to know us, and only sacrifice men to the Goddess during full moons.
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 3:24:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leslie, I am not sure if I would describe your arguments as feminist or femin-nazi. It seems you are intent on imposing a certain kind of dress on women of one faith but not on women (or indeed men) of other faiths.

I may not be Jewish, but I prefer the approach of Jewish organisations in France and Australia - if you ban one set of religious symbols, you ban them all.

If today we ban hijab, then tomorrow we will ban sikh turbans and jewish yamulkes. And then we may as well ban religion from schools altogether.
Posted by Irfan, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 4:08:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
enaj, off topic (again) but you had better watch out. I remember some posts where David_JS indicated that he was plotting to take over the world for the gay community, unless you form some kind of coalition you have competion.

Irfan, any thoughts on why religious symbolism should be allowed in schools and other forms of personal preference/expression not allowed.
I don't see that someones choice to believe in a particular theology should be treated by the community as more valid than another persons choices which don't have the label "religion" attached.

Once again I'm sitting on the fence on the overall topic trying to make some sense of the competing arguments. The most useful one so far was the comment about further isolating children who come from extreme families. A reason to ignore the philosophical arguments and to try and avoid these kids from becoming more marginilised.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 4:33:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent article, echoing my thoughts completely.

With all the religious violence around the world (do a search on violence against hindus, muslims or whatever) I have to agree that religion should be kept out of public schools altogether. France were right to ban all forms of religious dress from schools, made all the more urgent as a result of a growing muslim population.

If Australian schools were made up of 50% sikhs and 50% muslims, I'd be urging a ban on religious dress code without delay. At the moment I'm simply happy to discuss it, and so we should. Religious dress in schools is not an issue we should take lightly.
Posted by minuet, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 5:47:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As realist said - "When in Rome, do as the Romans do...."

Good advice I think and in case many of the people here forget it, this is Australia - not Iran, Not Irak, not Lebanon, not Africa - nor any other place for that matter - it is AUSTRALIA and we do have our own customs and beliefs - well we did the last time I walked around anyway.

I do believe we started out as a "christian" country, we have made the fundamental error of allowing a multi cultural experiment to get completely out of hand - so as far as I am concerned ALL religions should be totally banned from schools - they are the scourge of mankind and the cause of 99.99% of all wars and conflicts (if you have any other data or statistics please flaunt them - but I will take a lot of convincing!)

Ban the hijab, ban the burka, ban skull caps and ban crosses from all schools and remember you have all chosen to come to A FREE AUSTRALIA - leave your problems - leave your religious bigotry - leave your hatred back in your old country and be AUSTRALIAN!!

If you do not like the way Australia is, you are very welcome to return to what you left, do not try and change me, but become like me - do not try and change me to what you left, because you left it for a reason and I just do not want to become like you were.
Posted by Kekenidika, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 5:57:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a thought, before you go banning fabric from certain parts of the body, why not educate about patriachy, sexism and gender equality? That way, you might be able to offend misogynistic and chauvinistic muslim and non-Muslim Australians alike.

Remember, gender equality is hardly a universally accepted value for non-Muslim Australians either. I'm in favour of changing people minds, but not burning childrens' clothes.
Posted by strayan, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 7:01:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect that one reason attention is being given to the Hijab, or any symbol of Islam, is that the demographic points made by Timkins are quite accurate, and further, it is the Muslims who are themselves stating this.

So, if you can't beat-em, out breed-em. They don't even need to be radicals, all they have to do is continue having more children than non Muslims and history will take its course.

I also supsect that as population levels become closer, so also will the friction, and social unrest, and the cynicism about whatever government does "OOOh.. are they doing this for 'THEM'" ? etc....

I prefer the more responsible approach. If you can see the seeds of social meltdown in growing, make policies which will prevent this before it becomes unmanagable.

This of course has implications for 2 areas.

1/ Immigration policy
2/ Family policy.

on Family policy, we need to at LEAST meet out 2.1 criteria just to survive. For this to be workable, maybe.. just maybe :) (u watching Laurie and enaj) a few more women can be more full time mums, and open up some employment for more guys (I can see the raised eyebrows and beginning of shrieks of 'heresy':)....

We also need a predictable, enduring values framework. We need to reward strong families and avoid the apparent suicides like the 16 yr old girl we heard about in the news 2night who's parents just separated.

If not, then its "mene mene, tekel upharsin"

(Do a search to see the meaning)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 7:41:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I cannot believe some of you people, how can you sit there and so openly admit to being xenophobic. If anything, we need more immigration, more mixing of cultures!

How can people sit around purporting to be proponents of free trade then turn around and take pride in their restrictions on the global trade of employment? I would not care if Australia had a 40% Muslim population, a 30% Asian population and a 10% seek population. For so long as we maintain our solid constitution (perhaps with the inclusion of a bill of rights) we have nothing to fear.

I spoke to a friend who just came back from America recently; he complained about how American media does not report much of the outside world. I replied to him "Perhaps, I am in really in no position to judge that as I have not been to America. However, the Australia you say has a much wider exposure to the world through our media still maintains xenophobia much closer to the mainstream of thought than America." Some of the people who have posted here have proven my point.
Posted by DLC, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 8:03:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I enjoyed your article Leslie but I completely disagree with your conclusions. Muslim schoolgirls have been covering up for many years in Australia. Everyone seemed to cope with it until the French made such a big scene about it.

Maybe, if we can’t design a uniform for everybody, we should let everybody design their own. Scrap the uniform; it’s no big deal.
Posted by Rob88, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 8:45:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Waleed Aly wife Susan Carland, the Australian Muslim of the Year; says, “ the importance of the headscarf is greatly exaggerated, but "Islam touches every aspect of your life. To me, it's a tangible reminder of being close to God." She says it also makes Muslim women flag-bearers, or ambassadors, for Islam.”

This would indicate that at least in Susan’s view their wearing of the headscarf has political connotations of claiming territory. That is what flag bearers are doing symbolically, making a statement; I am conquering this territory as my space
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 11:08:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Muslims in the state school are allowed to wear the Hijab and forego the school uniform,then we must eliminate the secular school uniform since one group can usurp the rules.Perhaps we need special Muslim State Schools where they can please themselves.

What if the Nazis or Klu Kux Clan feel they have a religious affinity with their belief system,can they then wear swaz stickers or the Hoods of the clan to school to express their belief systems?

Many people also find the Hijab intimidating and even threatening.Where do we draw the line?

My point is we don't have to wear our religious beliefs on our sleeves or heads.Religion should be like sex,i.e done in private between consenting adults.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 11:31:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I generally support the right of people to express themselves however they like, in this case I think Cannold has a point. As a symbol, the hijab head scarf has become a focus for intolerance by 'Christians' and racists, and for radicalism and internalised misogyny among Muslims. As such it has no place in our state schools, which ought to be avowedly secular and egalitarian, unlike their private counterparts.

As I understand it, 'hijab' in Islam refers to a general code of modest dress for both women and men. In many Western societies, women interpret this is dressing modestly, according to the social context - e.g. wearing a business suit or school uniform. The wearing of the headscarf is a relatively recent elaboration on the 'hijab' principle, and is as much a statement of identity as it is conformity to Islam. As such, the wearing of the hijab head scarf is a political act that has no place in our schools when it becomes the focus of religious, political or racist conflict.

Of course, since one of our key values is egalitarianism, the proscription of religious symbolism in schoolkids' apparel should be applied universally in our public schools. As in France, this would apply equally to the Muslim hijab, the Christian cross, the Jewish yarmulke etc etc.

However, I disagree with Cannold about the observance of religious holidays in public schools. The only holidays that should be observed other than recreational vacations, should be those proclaimed by the State. And of course, if we're going to get rid of divisive religious symbolism in our schools, then it has to be bye bye to Christmas carols, nativity scenes and the like.

Those who want to ban the hijab on secular grounds can't have it both ways, else they provide the Muslim minority with valid grounds for aggrievement on the basis of discrimination.
Posted by mahatma duck, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 6:58:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DLC, use your powers of ratiocination. Any free trade we have is not with a muslim country so what does that say about your trade of employment? Also with a 40% muslim population our constitution won't look like it does now.

The following industries will be forced to close if the muslim demographic grows to the proportion you suggest: gambling industry; club industry; hotel industry; lesbian and homosexual industry; cruise ship industry; pig products industry; sex workers industry; fashion industry and a number of others. Some industries that will be forced to modify will be: book publishing industry; slaughterhouses; film & TV industries; state and private schools; Australian Olympic Committee; and many others.

Groups with adscititious codes of behaviour which are anhedonic in nature are not creative nor are they hardly likely to be tolerant of, or give their imprimatur to, an industry which churns out a TV program such as Rove Live.

DLC, you don't present any credentials which might establish you as a maven. And as if to underscore your own shortcomings, you too have proven that you are an ultracrepidarian critic. To highlight that statement, the gambling industry pays AUD$3.717 billion in taxes and levies (ABS 1997-1998) and in NSW 1512 clubs employ 65,000 people directly and 250,000 indirectly (30th June 1998). Where will your 'new look' Australia find that $3.717 billion and which industry will employ the displaced 315,000 people? Perhaps the Qur'an printing industry?
Posted by Sage, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 9:57:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those people who feel that we should bend every which way to cater for alien cultures and those who don't care how many Muslims live here, should think about Holland.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:17:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Laurie,
I would agree that there are conflicting opinions on what is meant by the word “feminist”. The author has written that she is a “feminist”, thereby wanting to stereotype herself. But perhaps she should provide more specific details on what she means by being a “feminist”, so people will not accidentally miss-stereotype her.

Enaj,
If you have “feminist” type children, then should they wear the Hijab, or would wearing the Hijab be too stereotyping, or too “non-feminist”.

Boaz,
I am inclined to think that the numbers of Muslim babies being born in France is not being purposely done. More like Muslim women in France are having close to the normal number of babies, and non-Muslim French women are having too few babies, (or none at all).

However, if there is a secular, Marxist / Feminist type society that wants to eliminate marriage, eliminate fathers etc, eventually not enough children are born to sustain that society. This now seems universal, no matter what the country.

Rob88,
I think the Hijab issue in France was more like a cultural focus point, rather than a school uniform issue. The French can be very nationalistic (Eg “When in France, you must speak French” etc), but non-Muslim French women are having so few babies, that the whole French culture, (and all its history), could become a Muslim culture within a few decades. This was the major concern, so the Hijab in French state schools became a focus point for a much broader cultural issue.

Philo.
It is rather incredulous, that there is a clash of cultures over a head scarf, but in reality, that head scarf was most likely used in earlier times to cover up grey hair.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:55:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My kids aren't "feminist type" children. They are intelligent young women with a strong sense of themselves (she said proudly). As such, they can choose for themselves whether they wear a head scarf or not. Sometimes they do wear hats and scarves and hair decorations, sometimes they do not. Up to them, in my view, certainly not up to me or, indeed, to you, Timkins.
And, as I believe my daughters should have the right to choose their own clothes (they attend the only no uniform public high school in NSW -one of the top three performers academically, interestingly enough), so I believe all girls and women should, even if I personally would rather they chose differently.
If we stop muslim women and girls who want to wear the hijab from wearing it, how are we different from the societies that insist those who do not want to wear one, must?
I simply can't see a difference.
Posted by enaj, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:13:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DLC, maybe too much reporting of the outside world here in Australia is making us xenophobic. We know too much. We see what could end up happening here if we aren't careful.
Posted by minuet, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:15:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""Those people who feel that we should bend every which way to cater for alien cultures and those who don't care how many Muslims live here, should think about Holland"".

AGREED Lee.

"When in Rome do as the Romans do"!!

I shall go to the Muslims countries if I want to see people wearing scarves on their heads. If I go to Thailand I have to cover up to walk through their old Royal Palace, I do this not only because this is a condition of entry but as a form of respect for their beliefs and way of life.

This is Australia and I presume these people come here to live because of what Australia is - stop forcing your beliefs on our Country, have respect for our beliefs and customs, and stop forcing the people and their forbears who have contributed and made this Country what it is, to have to put up with your standards and beliefs and dress codes.

Go back to where you came from if you do not agree with out beliefs, rules etc., revel in the freedom that you now have and stop being divisive.
Posted by Pachelbel, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 12:10:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sage,

Why do you assume that Muslims will ban such industries? Do you not believe that Muslims can be tolerant of the belief system of others? Is it not true that alcohol (to excess) and gambling are seen as immoral by the Christian faith? Is it also not equally true that Christian governments have banned homosexual activity, alcohol, gambling and prostitution at various times throughout history?

The simple fact is Muslims are not to be feared, large governments with these kinds of powers are what we must fear.

minuet,
This medium can make it awfully hard to determine someone’s true intentions, but for your sake I will assume that was a comment made in jest.

Pachelbel,
How are they forcing anything on us? When I walk past you wearing Jeans am I forcing you to also wear jeans?

Everybody,
If you don’t want your kids to associate with little girls with fabric covering their hair then you should place them in a catholic school, then they can associate with old women covering their hair with fabric.
Posted by DLC, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 12:36:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pachelbel - what the hell are OUR beliefs?

We have never been a monoliythic culture; there had long existed, for example, a huge gulf in belief systems between catholics and protestants - employment opportunities were limited to people based on religion and each group vilified the other - bohemian sub cultures grew up in Sydney and Melbourne and other forms of radical social elements thrived, artist colonies developed rejecting norms of relationships and life style - we sustained all manner of different belief systems - we have a history featuring strong communist movements, strong nationnalist-fascist movements. So where is the commmon ground - up until now I would guess the only common ground has been a sense of reason and tolerance; both in short supply in some circles today.

NO one is forcing their beliefs on me; I cant remeber the last time I was told by my Islamic neighbours to comply with the requirements of Ramadan or was told to cover the head of my daughters or not eat Pork or not go to the footy on the Sabbath.

And as for revelling in freedom - we'd all better revel while we may - unreasoned fear is slowly but surely eroding that concept.

We will be, if this paranoid pre occupation persists, the architects of our own demise; the rise and fall of cultures is a bit like the old adage politicians and other notaries spout - you meet the same people on the way down as you did on the way up - if for arguements sake and it is a big if - over generations another culture come to dominate "ours", how well can we expect to be treated when we are the minority if we have treated them with intolerance and contempt.

And to what ends would we go to ward off this looming cultural transformation so many seem to be wetting their collective pants over. My advice comes from the sage mutterings of the perenially incontinent ; Just go with the flow - resistance is futile.
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 12:44:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear posters,

Have been following the thread for while, thought an insight from an Australian Muslim might help:

- Some posters confuse excercising our freedom with ‘imposing it on others’ this is totally incorrect. We don’t eat pork but we don’t ask others to do it. Egypt with 55 million muslims and 15million Christians, have been servicing Christians with pork industry for the last 14 centuries, it never disappeared.
PS: Christmas and Easter are public holidays there as well.

- Industries will disappear myth: again forget Turkey but look at North African countries, Emirates, etc… They live on tourism and hospitality. Please rethink what you write. We don’t gamble or drink, that’s our religious belief not yours. All that is is we favour socially responsible economy and investment.

- An average Muslim in Australia will be working and having friends from different faith/ religious backgrounds or even sexual preference. Please provide me with statisitics when did a Muslim person offend another person belief. On the contrary, I can give you numerous facts on door to door knocking and harassment to Muslims homes by, say, missionaries and Jehovah witnesses. I used to find a bible invitation every month in my mailbox until I had to call and ask them to kindly stop it. Did you see Muslims doing the same?

- Demography paranoia:
Peter Costello defines having a family/ household with three kids is good citizenship. Most new generation Muslims have 2-3 kids which are far less than orthodox Jews or Christians (I remember on ABC an Iraqi Jewish lady had a dozen of children). Mind you, this is our choice to be become “good citizens” we choose to raise a family over having a yacht or a sportscar, gambling, travelling, etc..If someone chooses not to raise a family but raise a couple of dogs instead it is his/her choice in life.

- On the Islamic reforms: Turkey among other countries have been reforming for the last 3-4 decades and yet still facing difficulties with the EU membership rather than being embrassed as a model.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 1:18:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

The other point on future demography of Australia is the “Muslim of Middle East/ Arab” tabloid.

Over the last 5 centuries, the percentage of Arab Muslims is less than 15% of the total Muslims population and decreasing. In fact, a considerable chunk of Australian Arabs/ Arabic speaking (85-90,000) are in fact of other religions (Christianity, Judaism, others).

The non-arabs adoption of Islam is filtering a lot of the traditional tribalism imposed on Islam by Arabic culture (Not saying that all Arabic culture is bad but some social aspects of it are).
For example, over the last two years, approx 3-5 thousands Australians of Anglo/ European origin chose Islam as a religion. With the Non-Arab adoption of Islam, a lot of the negative influences of tribalism will surely wash off.
(Source is SMH artciles "lure of Allah")

Food for thoughts,

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 2:36:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not care if muslims wear the burq, hijab or any other ugly thing as long as they stay in their own countries.
But little by little they are forcing their traditions and attitudes on us , they do not want to meld into our society , do not want to integrate, do not want anything to do with our way of life yet expect us to give in to all their demands.
France had every right to insist on banning the wearing of hijabs at public schools, the same should apply here.
Posted by mickijo, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 2:38:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How absurd. How can you regulate what people wear? Many times in winter I have wrapped my shawl around my head, to stop my hair blowing everywhere and keep me warm. Is this okay because I am an agnoistic white woman? Because my skin is a boring pasty beige instead of a caramel sort of colour, am I simply keeping my hair un-frizzled, rather than making a political statement?

"Keep to their own countries"- Unless you happen to be a pure-blooded indigenous Australian, that strikes me as a very slippery slope indeed.
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 2:50:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C'mon Laurie, don't be silly. May we assume that the windy conditions that forced you to wrap your shawl around your head have now passed? Not much breeze in Australian classrooms, is there Laurie?

Laurie, over the last six months (and I swear unknowingly and totally uncoordinated), I may have faced Mecca at least 180 times. Does that make me a latent muslim?
Posted by Sage, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 7:28:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins,
If you cared to read my comments carefully you would realise I was quoting what Australian Muslim woman of the year had to say about what her head covering meant. Your idea that the head covering was worn for vanity is nonsense. Ancient women in tribal religious communities were forbidden to exhibit vanity. I ask do six year old Muslim girls suffer from grey hair? How would you know, if they were wearing their hijab? Come up with a more realistic guess!

Rather than guessing, read ancient texts on why wemon were forced to subject themselves to their fathers, brothers, and husbands authority. The sign of this was loose fiting clothes that completely covered every part of their skin which included their heads. In Jewish prayers the men thank God they were not born a woman or a dog. Islam is also an Abrahamic religion and Abraham's grandson Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah instead of the love of his heart Rachael because they was completely covered. These ancient tribal people completely covered their wives and marriageable daughters. These cultural practices were written in the ancient texts of the Bible.

Quote, "It is rather incredulous, that there is a clash of cultures over a head scarf, but in reality, that head scarf was most likely used in earlier times to cover up grey hair."
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 10:28:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those who think is OK for any group to disregard State school uniforms think about future generations.This is the thin edge of the wedge.There are some State schools in NSW that only serve halal food and all who want to eat,have no choice.

The hijab to many, has become a political symbol of suppression.It was banned in France because it was symbolic of Muslim disregard of French laws and customs.The French have huge simmering social conflicts with their Muslim population.The Muslim philosophy is their's is the only way,and all must accommadate them.While we only hear from the Educated moderates who can articulate their position well,there are many who dispise our way of life and want to impose their tenets on all.

The radicals in Indonesia want to destroy their economy since a prosperous nation has little reason to seek refuge in religion.This form of religion is all about the power of mortal men and the concept of god is the conduit to achieve this.

Do you want future generations to be ruled by religions bereft of true democratic ideals,scientific logic,and social tolerance or are we too stupid and weak to see the dangers?
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 11:07:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, the majority of the muslim population in Indonesia do not subsribe to such fundamental ideals. Indonesia is 80% Muslim, yet the parties who promote the "Islam is the only way and we must force others to see it our way" message fail miserably.
Posted by strayan, Thursday, 20 October 2005 12:23:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow Human advises that 3,000 to 5,000 Anglo Australians have converted to Islam in just 2 years. There's another thing for you wonderfully liberal people who don't give a damn about what happens to your country and culture to think about. The aim of Islam is world domination. This will come about through violence or infiltration.

Abu Bakir Bashir says: "If there is a state,the infidel country must be visited and spied upon. My argument is that if we don't come to them, they will persecute Islam."

We have about 300,000 Muslims in Australia now. More will come. More people will convert, and self-hating, trendy-left Australians will go under, taking those of us who do value our own culture and heritage with them.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:08:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
I don’t think the Bible or the Koran are very historically accurate, nor do I think they are meant to be taken too literally.

In regard to the Hijab and French schools. Religious symbols are not allowed in French state schools, so it was debated whether or not wearing the Hijib in schools was functional, or symbolic of a religion.

There were historians contacted who had studied the history of clothes. Over the years, people have worn many different clothes, that have not been greatly functional or even convenient, but in earlier times men would often wear something to cover up baldness, and women would wear something to cover up grey hair (eg caps, hats, wigs, scarves etc). It was found that even in Muslim societies where the Hijib was not imposed, women began to voluntarily wear it as they got older, and the main reason (although not openly talked about), was to cover up greying hair. Greying hair in men is normally not a great problem for them, although quite a few can have a problem with becoming bald.

Western societies have also imposed some unusual and often non-functional types of dress. Many women have worn the corset and the high heel shoe, often causing them considerable health problems. Apparently both were introduced into French society by the rather notorious Catherine de Medicis in the 1550’s. Some of her other talents included poisoning and political assassination, and she once ordered the slaughtering of over 50,000 Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's Day in 1572.

Many men are also required to wear rather hot and uncomfortable neck ties and business suits, and it has been estimated that this is producing unnecessary greenhouse gasses, because more coal has to be burnt to create more electricity to drive office air conditioner systems which have to be turned down lower than necessary, so as to keep cool the businessmen wearing the hot and uncomfortable neck ties and business suits

So overall the Hijab is only one of many non-functional types of clothing being worn.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:10:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And how will we defeat this Islamic armageddon, Leigh? Are you suggesting two armed and belligerent camps in the world facing and hating each other? Haven't we just spent 50 years doing that with the Eastern block?
We expell all of them and they expell all of us, I suppose. Sounds like just the way to have a war, if you ask me.
Surely our best chance is to encourage moderate Muslims (the majority I imagine) to reject extremist philosophy? We need to remain engaged with most Muslims and not allow ourselves to confirm the worst things the fundamentalists say about us.
Will we do that better by being tolerant and inclusive and civilised ourselves? Or by becoming (un) Christian versions of the very thing we most despise? Allowing women to choose their own clothes is fundamental to Western philosophy, giving up on that one simply makes us oppressors too.
Posted by enaj, Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:16:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is this debate still going on? Are we revisiting it to celebrate Bronwyn Bishop's birthday or something.

It is headwear - who cares if they wear it or if kids are forced to wear it when they are little. My mum used to make me wear sandals to school with socks and i bloody hated it. Does that mean i am oppressed.

As I said when the hijab issue first arose. Have a headscarf which is in school colours and has a school logo. let whoever wants to wear it, wear it to school. They are probably warm in winter and provide sun protection in summer.

They look better than a flap hat, any way.

Can't we argue about something constructuve like banning Collingwood jumpers - they offend me far more than a little girl in a hajib.

(Actually, why don't they have footy team inspired hijabs as well for all those Muslims who go to the footy. The Canterbury ones would be popular)

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:37:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh is concerned.

Using Fellow Humans 3-5000 2yr conversion rate and selecting the higher number - after all it is an avalanche we are facing here , assume its 50:50 gender split and the marry and they have a 60% fertility rate and none of thier babies die or are eaten by any of us and they have three children per couple that 5000 will be about 9500 in three years. Lets assume the conversion rate stays at 5000 new islamists and they are as fecund as their fellow converts after ten years ( assuming the 5000 conversion rate holds and they marry and they breed ) by year ten we have 57000 new muslims with offspring up to 8 years of age; add the trickle through immigration and the odd one or two who sneek in and we might have 65000 new muslims in our midst! go back to your villages and lock up the children!

Leigh...maaaaate...wotaryugonnadooabowtit? - ban the religion?, make conversion of anything other than a car from petrol to gas illegal?, sterilze them ?, put them in detention camps ( we already do that, silly me) gas ovens ?

we need to know what the final solution to the dreadfull problem is - cleary us snivel libertarians havent a clue; us here amidst the putrifying ides of the left are bereft of imagination when confronted by a problem of this magnitutde - help us out here.

I mean Spain never had it so good when run by the Moors; they were sophisticated, cultured, tolerant - now theres a word I aint heard lately - then Queen Isabella rocked up and gave us the Inqusition, persecution of the jews and raft of other things seemingly better than what the Muslims were doing.

In the mean time I am going to open an Halal hamburger joint and muslim attire outlet and call it " A burkah with the lot" - among fear and loathing I smell an opportunity here.

I am sneekeepete; and like so many others really tire of the hysteria surrounding these matters.
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 20 October 2005 12:42:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Hijab That Wasn't
By Robert Spencer, FrontPageMagazine.com | September 20, 2005

"Friday night I went on Alan Colmes' radio show to discuss Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's suggestion that American mosques be wiretapped. Romney was right, I said, because American Muslims hadn’t taken any steps to separate jihadists and sympathies from their ranks. Colmes was aghast, and invoked the condemnations of terror by the Council on American Islamic Relations. Several times during the half-hour I was on the show, Colmes chided me for not taking CAIR's condemnation of terrorism at face value. Colmes seemed unwilling to consider, the possibility their condemnation might not be all it appears.

Much of what CAIR produces is not all it appears to be - as was graphically illustrated this week by a photo retouching at CAIR's website. A photograph posted at CAIR's website depicted "leaders of the interfaith community gathered for an interfaith candlelight vigil...to mark the fourth anniversary of the 9/11." One of these leaders - who appeared to be Samina Faheem Sundas, editor of the American Muslim Voice - was standing prominently between the male speaker at the podium with two Muslim women. Those women were standing submissively with hands clasped in front and eyes cast downward, hijabs showing prominently in the picture. But there was something suspicious about the hijab worn by the woman resembling Sundas: she wasn't actually wearing one. The one she had on in the picture was crudely drawn on her head by a retoucher. What's more, two women in the crowd also sported drawn-on hijabs. Someone at CAIR evidently thought that posting a photo of bareheaded women would cast doubts upon the organization's Islamic correctness.

I posted the photos illustrating this at my website, Jihad Watch (www.jihadwatch.org ), CAIR within hours replaced the retouched photo with the unretouched original. But the damage was done: soon Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, Instapundit, Roger L. Simon, Protein Wisdom, and others had spread the story over the blogosphere. If this were the only example of CAIR airbrushing the truth, it would be innocuous enough. But it isn't:............."
At http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19548
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:55:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sneekeepete said ‘ ban the religion?’
No..that is not what Leigh said, but what needs to happen is that the Mullahs, Imams and Sheiks that preach this religion, and the religon its self, needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century and the Koran interpretated along the lines of human rights and dignity. Not taken literally ie: a woman has committed adultery…therefore under Sharia Law she is to be stoned to death.. …or kill all the infidels that do not convert to Islam. They have to realise that the laws of this country are are made by and passed by man and are to be adhered to, not by some so-called 7th century warlord prophet and expounded by radical Mullahs, Imams and Sheiks. If they don’t like it, then they can go back to where they came from.
Why is it that the Hindus, Jews, Buddists and Christians can get along with each other but the Muslims cant? Why do we have to afford Islam special ‘privileges’?
For eg:

Deeming the "religious vilification" of Islam to be illegal in Australia.

The solution is in this quote:
"It's a mistake to blame Islam, a religion 14 centuries old, for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam, a totalitarian ideology less than a century old. Militant Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution."
~Daniel Pipes

I could go on and on but buggerit…Im going to get another beer.
Cheers
Yowie
Posted by yowie, Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:26:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sneekeepete,
An industrious idea! Quote, "I am going to open an Halal hamburger joint and muslim attire outlet and call it " A burkah with the lot" - among fear and loathing I smell an opportunity here."

Be careful to change the filling from hamburger to halal beef burger, otherwise you might have the local Jihadist police close you down because of pollution from pigs.

What about this idea to confuse the terrorists: All Australians wear black mourning cloth, both male and female covered from head to toe. It would confuse the Muslim terrorists, they'd think we have all converted to Islam. There is more than one way to skin a cat [Ive nothing against cats, just an aussie expression] If we are to win this clothing war lets us all get into the act and this would confuse them. Anyone got a monoply on black cotton bolts. Watch the share price rise as this industry takes off.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:27:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,

I noticed you are seeing Islam/ Muslims through the eyes and comments of the likes of AbuBakr Bashir and Al Qaeda.

That is like asking me to see, Christianity for example, through the eyes and writings of Nazi Germany and Hitler speeches.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 21 October 2005 10:08:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, I doubt that the clothing idea would work. It looks to me as though the terrorists are very willing to kill muslims. How many muslims have been killed and maimed in the attempts of these fanatics to get at infidel pigs? Lots as far as I can tell.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 21 October 2005 10:53:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow Human said:

'That is like asking me to see, Christianity for example, through the eyes and writings of Nazi Germany and Hitler speeches.'

I thought that Hitler and all the Nazis were atheists. Nothing to do with Christians.

Cheers

Yowie
Posted by yowie, Friday, 21 October 2005 2:51:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yowie,

Hitler/ Nazi germany saw themselves as devout Christians.
Please check the German government archives website under Hitler speeches. He hated Jews thorugh religion first then politics. Check his infamous 1922 speeches onwards where he quote things like "there is not enough baptism water to purify Jews" and that he is 'doing God's will by murdering them.

Hitler actually was a church goer and the church was in denial (they are still actually).I guess similar to some Muslims in our camp who still believe Bin laden have nothing to do with Sep 11.

All the best,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 21 October 2005 3:41:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before I comment on Leslie Cannold's argument, to those posters who post sentiments along the lines of "when in Rome": Islam is an Australian religion as much as Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism or any other faith or ideology.

Muslim contact with Australia predates white settlement, there were Muslims on the first fleet, Afghan cameleers helped open up the interior, and today around 36% of Muslims in Australia were born here. Hijab-wearing is an Australia practice as much as wearing a Christian cross, a Jewish yarmulke or a Sikh turban. I say this as a Muslim who is a sixth generation Anglo-Australian (from both sides of my family).

If you want to play the game of majority rules or who was here 'first' then you are going to get yourself in dangerous territory trying to define Australian-ness. Australian Islam is here to stay. Four little words of advice - get used to it.
Posted by ummyasmin, Sunday, 23 October 2005 11:07:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cannold writes that feminism has taught her to look for power. Many feminists have long moved past the second-wave myth that power is only or even primarily located in the public domain. Cannold may need to be introduced to the thought of indigenous and third-wave feminists who reject the hegemonic voice of white, middle-class, Euro-centric second-wave feminists like herself who presume to speak as universal Woman.

As a Muslim feminist who has researched veiling practices and the experiences of Muslim women, I suggest it appears Ms Cannold has little access - and therefore intimate knowledge - of the worlds of Australian Muslim women, and therefore cannot speak *for* us with any authority. She may be surprised to learn that loci of power are found in diverse places.

One of those sources of power is in veiling practices. Anything to do with dress is overdetermined and not easily categorised into a binary of right or wrong. As Cannold notes in a throw-away paragraph, the hijab can be liberating for some women. If she really believed this, she would not attempt to force her own peculiar understanding of liberty on us. She wants us to become unveiled because it is a common misconception that the hijab symbolises oppression. She demands to see our bodies in order to pander to prejudice. Whether individual Muslim women experience oppression, liberation, or any other state of being is not in question here. Cannold wishes Muslim women to be forced to expose parts of themselves in an act of symbolism - incredibly the very same motivation against which she rails.

Instead of forcing women to veil or unveil, Muslim feminists argue that each woman has the right to adopt and interpret the faith for herself. Many Muslim feminists choose not to veil, others do. They perform the age old practice of ijtihad - of struggling with the texts in order to determine the will of God as they understand it. Only then can the headscarf - or its absence - be a liberating experience.
Posted by ummyasmin, Sunday, 23 October 2005 11:16:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow Human wrote:

Hitler/ Nazi germany saw themselves as devout Christians.
Please check the German government archives website under Hitler speeches. He hated Jews thorugh religion first then politics. Check his infamous 1922 speeches onwards where he quote things like "there is not enough baptism water to purify Jews" and that he is 'doing God's will by murdering them.

---

But it isn't quite that simple. The Nazis had their own 'religion' in which Jesus was to be forgotten and God barely remembered. German propaganda rallies were based upon Catholic ideas, but leant more on Nordic myth than Christian liturgy.

The policy against the Jews was not based on religion, but on race, the same as the policy against the Roma.

Jews who had converted to Christianity were just as likely to be imprisoned and killed as those who were secular or devout Jews.

Something not commonly known is that the Germans recruited Islamic troops in the Caucasses, the "Handschar" division. There was no active discrimination against people of Islamic background and the Mufti of Jerusalem spend a lot of WW2 in Germany.

German ethnic cleansing was about race, not religion.
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 23 October 2005 11:33:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, ummyasmin, for your intelligent and informative post. I agree that the choice of hijab is up to the individual. I am not a muslim; however I do consider myself to be a feminist in that I believe in equal opportunity for all people (male, female, religious, athiest, whatever).

I can't say that I like the hijab, however I have to respect the right of people who choose to wear it as an expression of their beliefs.

I disagree with Cannold on banning the hijab - I don't see how she can regard herself as a proponent of human rights if she feels compelled to dictate dress codes to others - this is not what feminism is about.
Posted by Scout, Monday, 24 October 2005 10:19:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, excellent posts from ummyasmin, that confirm my understanding of the history of Islam in Australia. Interesting points too about the arrogance of some 'second-wave' feminists with respect to imposing yet another set of Western values upon women who identify with very different traditions.

Ummyasmin's comments are also a refreshing change from the thinly 'veiled' racism of some posters above, not to mention the 'just-so' stories concerning the supposed history of the hijab head scarf as a means to conceal grey hair.

However, given the politico-religious dimension of hijab wearing and its consequent potential to focus division on ethnic and religious grounds, I think that Cannold is correct to suggest that the hijab head scarf should not be worn in public schools. Of course, as I wrote above, the same proscription should apply to all potentially divisive religious apparel - such as Christian crosses, the Jewish yarmulke and the Sikh turban.

Our public schools should not be sites for the playing out of adult political, ethnic and religious conflicts by proxy.
Posted by mahatma duck, Monday, 24 October 2005 11:42:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Times Online, Anthony Brown, 26 October 2005

"The Netherlands is likely to become the first country in Europe to ban the burka, under government proposals that would bring in some of the toughest curbs on Muslim clothing in the world. The country's hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned.

The burka, traditional clothing in some Islamic societies, covers a woman's face and body, leaving only a strip of gauze for the eyes. Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the "time of cosy tea-drinking" with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other.

She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman..."

At: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1823334,00.html
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 26 October 2005 8:48:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey

I've read the artice. Here's my opinion:

You can't have it both ways. If you ban things like christmas carols and the cross from schools due to secularism, you MUST ban other things such as the hajib. No two ways about it.

Frankly though, I don't care if they wear it. I also don't care if Christians pray in schools. As long as the school itself is not religious, the students should be able to express their religion any way they want. How can someone expressing their religion threaten your religion? It really makes no sense to ban crosses, skull caps or the hajib from school. More expression, less controll over unimportant things. People should wear what they want to wear (as long as it does not promote violence, and as long as it's something. You can't wear nothing)
Posted by Kafka Blue Sky, Friday, 4 November 2005 12:24:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I want to live and let live, but I do not want to lose the rights that Australian women currently enjoy.

I note that wearing of hijab and burka is a new phenomena in Australia. Many women adopted hijab after the 1991 Gulf War, and the burka is still not very common on Australian streets. In other words, many women arrived in Australia bare headed and adopted hijab once they arrived here.

I don't want to see Australian school girls wearing burka because that garment restricts their movement, and provides more hiding places for notes in public exams. Their restrictive garment is very symbolic of the restricted roles their families see them playing in Australian society. By all means let the girls chose hijab outside school, like their mothers did before them.
Nor do I want burka clad women driving vehicles - women peering through gauze covered slits in their coverings have restricted and impaired vision making them an unnecessary hazard to all road users.

I think the muslim cause has been done a great disservice by those Sydney youths who raped Australian girls saying the girls deserved it because they dressed like sl*ts. I am not sure whether the Australian victims were dressed in work clothes or night club gear but I think it was work clothes.

You can't ask to be special and be treated as an equal. Why should the old Australian culture have to accommodate the bad as well as the good habits of our newest immigrants?
Posted by sand between my toes, Friday, 4 November 2005 7:56:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy