"Yes, we can be in solidarity with women who 'choose' to wear it. But in doing so, we shouldn't legitimise the subculture that puts them in a position of having to make that choice in the first place."

So how do you do that, Andrew? How do you "be in solidarity with women who 'choose' to wear it" and at the same time not "legitimise the subculture etc."

And why the inverted commas around 'choose'? Are you suggesting that they aren't really choosing it? (In that case, how do we know that you really 'choose' to make your argument'?)

I think you are on the horns of a dilemma. If what you were implying were true, and they women are wearing it because their freedom to choose had been overborne in some way by coercion, that is already illegal.

And if not, then it's a choice in the real sense of the terms, isn't it, and none of your business?

"because their freedom to choose had been overborne in some way by coercion, that is already illegal"

It is ? So if I, as a guy, choose to wear a g-string only to the theatre and they kick me out, that's illegal ? I think not... We have to conform to societal norms, anything else is mostly illegal. Think not ? Walk starkers along Bondi, enjoying the caress of the sun on your skin and see what becomes of you.

The authors right but any change has to come from within, from exposure of these women to their western "sisters".

I also don't think there will be much actual success, after all critical thinking and religion are about as divergent as you can get. You already have them "believing" in mystical beings in the sky, an affront in the first place. I would think correcting that collective madness is more important then convincing them that their neighbour seeing their face will send them to a non existent hell in the first place.

I think we should start by ignoring the "progressives & feminists" grouped together
as they have lost all credibility in recent times.
As far as the "Darleks" go well I find it objectional. It is just a cultural thing
as the face when meeting someone is so very important.
Yet, we are happy to talk to someone on the telephone, hmm.

Saw something funny once, a toddler walked away with the wrong Darlek.
His mother got in a panic and had to chase after the other woman to stop
him following the wrong Darlek.

"However 'choices', construed as such, aren't made in a vacuum."

Yes indeed, particularly if those 'choices' are made within the context of an authoritarian, misogynistic culture, it's very informative to read comments by 'feminist' Muslim women on the issue.

"Another possibility is that progressives and feminists are happy for women to 'Destroy The Joint' on our own cultural turf, but simply lack the conviction to argue their case against practices that originate from outside the West."

Perhaps they also lack the backbone, it's so very easy to place the race card and claim "it's just another case of white men telling brown men how to treat brown women", when the issue is universal human rights, not race, religion or culture. It's not clear whether 'progressives and feminists have been lead astray' or they have painted themselves into a corner because of the current "left" obsession with race and Western colonialism. Conservative critics have simply filled the void left by the Left's negligence.

"It's time that progressives and feminists rediscover their core principles on the issue of the veil." It's long overdue, however it's doubtful whether the Left, such as it is these days, has the will.

The article is an informative and concise summary of the underlying issues.

I have a number of issues with this topic.
The notion of universal human rights is one. Who says there are such things as universal human rights, and under what universal authority do they say it?
Fair scrutiny of individuals in public places is another. When going thru the scanner in any airport in the world, if I have forgotten to remove my hat, I am told to do so. How much more might a full face veil conceal? Would I be allowed to keep my hat on when entering the Parliament building in Canberra?
Fair identification is another issue. In France it was reported that some students were sitting other students' exams from behind the veil.
And finally I think of the men. We are used to hearing about how the women living under the veil are marginalised and made lesser by the wearing. But how about those sad silly men who go through live worried about some other bloke seeing "their" women's faces? I recently shared an elevator in KL with one man and four women. From what I could observe without being too obtrusive, the women were amused and the bloke was just short of panic. Silly bugger. Let them take it off. You would feel emancipated by not making others conform to your will, gods be buggered.

progressive/feminist have a lot in common with Islam. They are both totalitarian in ideology. Thankfully more and more are seeing through their ideology that destroys families and life in order to fulfil their selfish ambition. I am especially heartened that many young women can now see the rotton fruit of the likes of Emily's list etc.

When are men going to start wearing total black coverings?

Don't know about you but I'm sick of women, covered or uncovered, staring at me and raping me with their eyes.

It gets to you after a while. I mean, why do they only look at my body. Perhaps they are guessing at the size of my 'package'. Surely, in so doing, they don't see my intellect, my creativeness, my worth as a human being, my caring for the human race.

Yeah, let's all wear black coverings that hide everything except the eyes. When we eventually get together it will be a time of wonderful surprises and perhaps even deep disappointment.

Do you remember the time when 'Pick a Box' was all the rage?

Men and Women all dressed in black. What a lark!

I find the burqua to be a grotesque manifestation of uber-patriarchal "culture".
Most of present day Islam is of course uber-patriarchal.
As of course is much/most/all of conservative or right-wing Christianity - the kind of religion that Runner and the recent World Family Congress promotes.

I am also very sympathetic with feminism as defined by this essay:
http://www.beezone.com/shakti/risefallmothergoddessLMM.html

Altogether the author points out that the Feminine Principle urgently needs to be re-integrated into the collective psyche of Western man (in particular). Because the Western patriarchal mind and "culture" has, by its very nature inevitably brought the entire world to the brink of both cultural and ecological meltdown.
This essay is also a critique of the patriarchal mind and its always murderously reasonable intentions.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html

Have to agree with Mac!
Rhrosty.

It could be summed up this way;
Have you ever heard a moslem man say;
"No I did not go there, the boss had other ideas."

Meaning of course his wife had something else she wanted him to do.
I and my friends have often said something like this.
Now, before the PCs jump in, yes I will bet some do have their minds changed
by their wive(s). They would never admit it, not even in a joke.

That says it all !

Surely the article has it the wrong way round, The burqa was not designed to protect women from marauding men, but to protect the men, from marauding women.

Too many men were being led astray by the flashing eyes & voluptuous breasts & bellies of women chasing sex, & distracting the men from their allotted duty. That of beheading of infidel men, & the raping of their women.

We couldn't have our brave Muslim men distracted in the street by their own women, they would not have the strength left to pillage.

Having said all that, I think I was partly right about the men wanting to hide the fact that many of their women grew more luxurious beards than they did.

I don’t think you can automatically deduce that women who wear religious head dress are less ‘liberated’ than women who do not. When you talk of freedom you have to define what the constraint is that women are under. All things being equal women with head dress can say or do what they like in this country. The only thing stopping them is their fear of losing relationships that they might be emotionally dependent on. This constraint affects women who do not wear head dress as well. No one can make you wear anything including your husband or father. There are no laws here which tell you what you have to wear. If you are wearing it then it is because you are not free enough of your emotional dependence on your relationships and not because of any patriarchal dominance or lack of support from progressives or feminists. It is this dependence which needs to be addressed not only for Australian Muslim women but equally for non-Muslim women.

It may be that another emotional dependence is at work for Muslim women who might claim that they are emotionally independent of their relationships with the men in their lives but continue to dress this way. They may be emotionally dependent on their religious practices. It is a religious practice for nearly everyone who wears that garb. You are telling everyone that you are a religious person. Everyone who indulges in religious practice is emotionally dependent on those practices since there are no logical reasons for doing them. This is how they deal with fear and anger and guilt. This is not the way of human nature.

Muslim women dress the way they do in Australia because they are emotionally dependent on their relationships or their religion. This dependence is not the fault of anyone else but themselves. We should help them see this for what it is and not make it about the shortcomings of patriarchal society or the silence of feminists and progressives.

I think you would find most Australians do not care that much about the the scarf and head dress where the face is uncovered. That is a fashion statement cultural icon etc. However the veil and covering of the face goes against social norms and in this day where identity is important against our basic values and makes many of the population feel ill at ease, just as they would if a woman walked naked into a mosque.We have to fit into culturally accepted values. To use a religious ideology for something that is not from the Koran is pandering to a vocal minority saying our dress standards are not acceptable and we should change our values, rather than those that have chosen to come to live in this land.

Multiculturalism in Australia has its teething problems, yet some will say it’s a major fail. Wrong! They say one has to break a few eggs to make an omelette, is how this works. Generally Humans all get along quite well considering the national dress-sense that’s under fire and if that’s the problem, how shallow can you get? A very good trouble spot was raised on the fact of child/mother recognition abilities, seen to be another focal point. This to us, is a point of concern.
White/black and all shades of grey, Australians love their way of life and when threatened, they will beat their ape objections to the matter strongly, but not to the point of violence’s we see in other cultures of less real state. Street speaking, no-one gives a sh!t…if all you can do is point your fingers in someone else’s direction, you are in-fact, being a moron:) In Sydney, there’s too much money to be made, In Melbourne, they are just bored sh!tless, In SA, only psychopaths live there, In the top-end…well it’s just too hot to care about anything and last but not least:)…..WA……you will keep going into the water, won’t you:)
Jokes aside, Over-population is a mythical sense, as long as it don’t wipe us all out in the processes of us all just getting a foot hold on the planet science. (Leo lame)…Now, if three armed men/women was to entre a bank….not giving any ideas to the crime element…dressing up as a mail-box, then entering back into the general public….where there are lots of faces you can’t see, could be the perfect crime. $100,000 in cash:)
I would prefer seeing faces.

It makes us all feel better.

Tall

One point not covered re full cover is the matter of honor.
If a woman from a family that insists on the burqua went out without it,
the family would be highly offended and the father did not take action the
eldest son would.
The action could range from murder to thrashing with a cane.

I was in the lounge of a London hotel sitting next to a Turkish man and got talking about this and that.
He showed me a photo of his son. He did something very stange.
He covered half the photo with a card. As he put it away he partly exposed
the other half and it was obviously his wife.
Now if that is not very strange behaviour what is ?
It ties in with a quote I saw re the burqua;
"She has to wear it, I don't want other men looking at my wife !"

I agree with most of the comments here, which is quite an achievement, considering I'm usually on the opposite side of most of the commenters.

I particularly agree with mac's comment that it's an issue that paints progressives and feminists 'into a corner'. From discussing this issue with many progressives and feminists, it's clear to me that they are troubled by the conflicting paradigms and fully admit to having 'mixed feelings'.

To say they have been 'led astray', as the author claims, is patronising to say the least.

As far as I'm concerned, and speaking as someone who considers myself (rightly or wrongly) as both a progressive and a feminist, I have no qualms whatsoever in endorsing moves to have the burqa and niqab banned in Western countries. As for Islamic countries, they can float their own boat.

However, the one argument I won't endorse is the one about 'the veil' being a foil for terrorists. Although there have been recorded cases where this has happened, I can think of much better anti-burqa arguments. I sense that right-wingers feel more comfortable with this argument, both because it plays on people's fears (which righties just love to do) and as a means to avoid having to address the arguments of progressives and feminists who blather on about individual choice and freedom of religion.

BTW - A poll taken by the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago revealed a majority (54%) approving of an outright ban on the burqa/niqab. Considering this is the newspaper of choice for most progressives and feminists, it makes you wonder.

bazz

'It ties in with a quote I saw re the burqua;
"She has to wear it, I don't want other men looking at my wife !"'

Your post made me think of the way things were when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s. I remember, as clearly as if it were yesterday, men often proudly proclaiming that 'No wife of mine is ever going to work'.

In fact, I used to hear this 'No wife of mine ...' declaration applied to lots of things - going into a pub, drinking beer (instead of ladylike soft drinks or shandies), driving a car, going on holiday or an extended trip alone, having their own bank account, buying things without their husband's permission ... etc.

That was only about two generations ago. And look how things have changed! In fact, I noticed that the same men who made those 'set-in-concrete' statements quickly changed their tune when they saw the benefits of all the money their newly independent working wives started bringing into the household.

What I'm saying is that, if we could leave Muslim cultures alone, the chances are that they will progress along the same lines as the rest of the world. What's restricting this is that Muslims are under constant attack and threat from the West, so they cling to their traditional belief systems - even though those belief systems have long since lost their relevance.

Thank you for the article. It is helpful to start a dialogue on this issue.

Given time, I would just like to mention one major issue that you have so far overlooked (this doesn't mean that there aren't other issues that need to be taken up here). There is an entire sector of development, from which we have learned over decades now that imposing change from the outside does not work. Change must come from within culture. Genuine and sustainable change is best facilitated through a process of dialogue, identifying strong local leaders for change, supporting education of those discriminated, and supporting local movements to develop and implement their own agenda for change etc. this is particularly so in the context of the Western colonial beast being seen to impose its values on others.

Prohibiting the burqa just demonises the woman. It will often mean for example that she is then prohibited from leaving the house - further isolating her and excluding her from social interaction.

Women will not be used as tools against their own culture. They have seen gender be used to demonise their men and their culture time and time again. We have multiple identities and often multiple layers of discrimination. this issue is so very clearly the use of 'colonial feminism.' I suggest having a look at article by Michael Brull in which he shares Leila Ahmed's work - .https://newmatilda.com/2014/10/09/burqa-colonial-feminism-and-politics-dog-whistling ... It sets this position out briefly.

No one likes being told what they must or must not do. What better way to deeply embed the behaviour?? When will we learn from history?

EmmaS –
Banning the burqa does not mean that a Muslim woman can no longer leave the house. It just means that she can no longer leave the house in a burqa. There are no laws in Australia that prosecute Muslim women for leaving the house without a burqa. Such a statement dramatises the situation in order to make the person look more of a victim than she is. She is not a victim she is totally responsible for her predicament.

She probably will not leave the house because she is afraid of the consequences in her relationships with the men who she lets control her, the community that she is emotionally dependent on or the ‘god’ that she thinks is watching her every move. These are her real problems. Whether we ban the burqa or not makes no difference – she will still have these problems. Banning the burqa does not demonise Muslim women it forces them to take responsibility for their choices in life and to stop being a victim. They have the power like every human being to face their own emotional dependencies and to extract themselves from those relationships. Australia and other western democracies provide them with a safe haven for doing that which their sisters in fundamentalist Muslim countries do not have.

It is not the responsibility of feminism or western culture to protect these women from their real issues which have nothing to do with Islam. Feminism in the past has done a good job of liberating women in the west from real issues of discrimination against women but is sometimes tries to change society so that women can ignore their own responsibilities and blame others for their situation.

No one forces these women to be Muslims – they choose it for their own reasons and that means they have to suffer the consequences of that choice. What feminism should be doing is helping these women see that they do not have to be Muslims and that this is the cause of their problems. The burqa issue fixes nothing.

Killarney,
I think your comment "No wife of mine will go to work !"
Was true, not because of misogyny but because it reflected on them in that they
were unable to support their family.
Remember it was not a time of the entitlement.

What caused the change was not as you said, but the feminist movement forced
the government to change the law so that lending authorities HAD to lend on two incomes.
Like any market, double the amount of money in the market and the prices double.
Therefore borrow on two incomes you need two incomes to repay it.

It really was that simple.

You believe Islam will change. Sorry but I think you do not understand.
The Koran is unchangeable on pain of death.
The Koran, I have read this chapter, is clear it cannot be reinterpreted.
It is not like the bible, which has been worked on and is not considered the "Word of God".
Indeed, some parts of the bible is considered wrong in these days.
That will never happen with the Koran.

It should not be unexpected that the radical feminists, many of whom are lesbians anyhow and see themselves and their strap-ons as the replacements for men would want to shield other women from the gaze of men and reserved for their eyes only.

For the remaining rump of the dinosaur feminists who stagger about with their anti-male baggage, grey-haired into the new Millenium, the burqa also represents the feminists' war on other women, especially those women who made up their own minds and chose more personally rewarding alternatives and lives than the materialist careerism and sheer one-eyed bitchiness of the feminists. The feminists' dislike of men pales in comparison of their jealous hatred of young women especially, who represent all of their lost youth and the choices they never made.

Feminist wowserism that would encase all women in a cloth casket in order that free and happy women become the same as themselves, alienated and soured against the world around them and blaming all but themselves for the full lives lived by others.

To the feminists and soy latte political 'Progressives' aka International Socialists (who wouldn't recognise Left ideology if there was a neon highway sign pointing at it), the burqa is the iconic symbol of feminist 'liberation'(sic) and cultural tolerance (read as cringing self-hatred).

Any wonder the spin of the political 'Progressives' (a misnomer of course) and the feminists has worn thin.

Well said, Emma!

The colonialist mentality of Western culture yet again raises its ugly head. This time they test the waters against Muslims - and if they succeed, then they will continue to tread underfoot all other cultures.

Unless a woman stood up and explicitly asked you to save her from her oppressive culture and family, who are you to assume she wants your "help" to be liberated?

When I was 7, we had next door a monastery which was used as a catholic school. I constantly saw those terrible figures in black (nuns) terrorising the kids who were locked up there, so I decided to liberate them.

The monastery was surrounded by a high wall, towering above the street which was sloping up to level with the wall towards its far side where the entrance was, so I ran uphill brandishing a toy gun, shooting firecrackers and shouting to those children: "run away, you are free! I hereby free you, jump out and escape!"...

Instead of the appreciation for my heroism which I expected, those kids whom my bleeding heart went out to, threw a rock over the wall on my head. I ended up bleeding and taken to the emergency first-aid station to be bandaged.

I learnt my lesson: when they want to be saved, they will call you!

(by the way, I am neither progressive nor feminist... nor Muslim)

Problems of Western Feminists 2014

Problem No1: Mrs Amal Clooney

Newlywed Amal Alamuddin, a London-based British-Lebanese human rights lawyer has chosen to change her name professionally to Amal Clooney.
The move has made international headlines in feminist circles where there is shocked indignation, disbelief, that a career woman like Amal would change her name.

Is Amal letting the side down? Only close leading interrogation by some notable feminists and restorative spin might recover the situation.

It is not known if Mrs Clooney ever refers to herself as 'British-Lebanese' or simply British. That is being thrown in by the media to give a multicultural spin for more story lines. Any wonder celebrites read the 'news' and wonder why the public is so gullible to believe any of it.

Anyhow, the gun turrets of jealous and spiteful feminists are already swinging her way. Amal will get the attention of the big swinging clit feminists - the attention that the same educated middle class feminist warriors did NOT give to the Rotherham child sex trafficking. Feminists have their priorities and what they say goes.

Yuyutsu/Emma

I neither know nor care whether banning the burqa/niqab is neo-colonialist, post-colonialist, pseudo-colonialist or just plain colonialist.

However, there is a lot of weirdly colonialist thinking in all this 'concern' about the effect of such a ban on burqa/niqab wearing women. We are very quick to assume - no doubt, due to our subliminal colonialist thinking - that they are hapless victims of the control-freak men in their lives, and that such a ban will mean that they can never hope to leave the house again.

I've had exchanges with burqa/niqab wearing women, both online and in person, and I can assure you these women are NOT downtrodden, enshrouded little shrinking violets. I must admit I've been pleasantly shocked and secretly pleased to find they are often extremely articulate, strong-minded women who will gladly tell you to f*k off and that they will wear what they bloody well like, thank you very much.

What annoys me about these women is that they know - or should know - that roughly 80-95% of the population of Western countries, Australia included, report in opinion poll after opinion poll that the burqa/niqab makes them feel very uncomfortable. So burqa/niqab-wearing women living in Western countries must know full well that they are creating discomfort and cultural tensions by walking around in public dressed in a way that makes the overwhelming majority of the population uncomfortable.

However, because of the weird and wonderful vagaries of this multi-culti political environment created for us over the last 30 years, we must assume that it's the people feeling discomfort over the burqa/niqab who are the ones with 'the problem' and NOT the women who choose to walk around in public dressed this way.

on the beach

I just love reading your regular comic-book-caricature feminism alerts.

Just where on earth do you get all this stuff from - the Heritage Foundation Almanac? Fox News Quarterly? Or do you just make it all up?

I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but the overwhelming majority of feminists are married or in long-term relationships with ... (gasp!) ... men. I've been happily married for over 25 years, as are many of my feminist friends.

Even the few I've known who are unmarried and/or lesbian are by no means lonely. Indeed, they live very full lives.

The loneliest and unhappiest women I've known over the years have been very traditional women who end up marrying very traditional men, who assume women were put on this earth to be their servants and playthings. Women who have some understanding of the politics of gender are very unlikely to fall into this kind of domestic trap.

Dear Killarney,

Should I write down the list of things that people do in public space which make me inconvenient? so much inconvenient even that I get uncontrollable convulsions? Yet I realise that I have no right to tell them to stop just because I suffer - that it's my problem and if I want to avoid seeing what they do, then I should simply stay at home.

If someone is uncomfortable with a woman wearing a burqa (or wearing nothing for that matter, the principle is exactly the same), then they should be able to disallow such women from entering their homes and businesses.

If the numbers are indeed as you state, then women who wear the burqa would find themselves unwelcome in 80-95% of homes and businesses and decide for themselves whether they wish to continue having this inconvenience.

Obviously, some current laws against "discrimination" would have to be repealed, which currently prevent individuals from legally barring selected others from entering their business or being employed there - but such laws should be repealed anyway.

Andrew Glover's article illustrates the fundamental contradictions and double standards of the "progressive" Left.

The first time I became aware of the contradictions and double standards of the educated caste I once aspired to join, was in the field of human equality. It was obvious to me, that the evangelical trendy lefties who endlessly preached the notion of human equality, were the biggest snobs around. They presumed to be the natural leaders of the working class and disadvantaged classes, while at the same time sneering with contempt for them, their values and their behaviours.

We are now witnessing the "social progressive" caste supporting the censorship of political speech under 18C. Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

The burkha is just another example of the Left amazing ability to ignore their own stated core principles whenever it suits them. Feminists who once loudly claimed that brassieres were symbols of female subjugation suddenly develop acute myopia when confronted by the burkha. Instead of recognising the burkha as a very obvious symbol of Islamic male oppression, they suddenly think up every lame excuse to justify the wearing of it. This clear contradiction is screamingly obvious to everybody.

When people are confronted by self evident hypocrisy, the perpetrators of that hypocrisy had better explain their logic quickly, or they had better accept that most people will consider that they are loonies with no credibility at all. They Left can hardly claim to be the representatives of the thinking class when they are claiming to be the champions of female equality, when at the same time they are defending the burkha.

It is interesting to speculate why the Left is so insistent on displaying their hypocrisy here and making fools of themselves. I can only presume that their reflexive, compulsive need to always denounce their own culture which they consider to be "oppressors", and to be sympathetic of the cultures of the "oppressed", that they just can't bring themselves to see the obvious. To do so might bring up the uncomfortable fact that Muslims are poor not because of "oppression", but because of their own inappropriate cultural values .

Killarney –
You say that women who wear religious headdress do not appear to you as downtrodden and lacking in freedom. This may be true in relation to the Muslim men in their life but cannot be true in relation to their religion. Any woman who is dependent on religious behaviour is not free at all. Unless you can show that religious behaviour is reasonable and logical then you cannot claim that these women are free in the full sense of the word. They are emotionally dependent on religious behaviour.

Maybe it is this that people find confronting and it is not necessarily a ‘problem’ for them. It may well be a concern when they see someone so openly display their lack of personal freedom. We find vision of refugees locked up in prison like conditions concerning and disturbing too but this is not because we feel threatened by it. We just do not like seeing our fellow human beings being constrained by anything. It causes a reaction in us that wants to do something but without impinging on their rights.

Every woman who wears religious headdress is advertising to the world that she is not free. There may be many other women who are not free for a variety of reasons but they do not so openly display that lack of freedom. It is almost like the Muslim headdress is a cry for help.

'Every woman who wears religious headdress is advertising to the world that she is not free.'

I would say Phanto that very woman who needs to dress immodestly in order to attract man's eye is not free. It is probably easier to throw on one of the hideos burqa's than standing in front of the mirror for an hour a day.

Maybe so,runner,but that is not the topic under discussion here.

Phanto, I hope you are not including nuns here?

runner,

"I would say Phanto that very woman who needs to dress immodestly in order to attract man's eye is not free. It is probably easier to throw on one of the hideos burqa's than standing in front of the mirror for an hour a day."

I wish we could throw a metaphorical burqa over your "unattractive" musings.

Cheers...

yea I know Poirot feminist/progressives have always hated be shown the truth. You are one of the finest examples of that.

Lol!, runner...that's telling me!

As far as I can see, so far your crowning contribution to this subject has been to slag off any woman who wears a covering because they may be less that attractive.

Very deep, runner...

Most profound...

and your profound regurgitated progressive answers Poirot are so sophisticated not.

phantom

Your posts are thoughtful and interesting. However, I feel they wander too far into concern-troll territory.

I really think there has been far too much projecting of Western feelings and thinking patterns onto women who wear the burqa/niqab, all designed to see them as willing/unwilling prisoners of their own cultures. We've created this whole line of argument that to ban the burqa/niqab would be to kick these women when they are already down.

This may or may not be true. However, unlike other forms of religious and cultural dress - like Sikh turbans, nuns' habits, Buddhist shaved heads and saffron robes, Italian/Greek women in black etc - the burqa/niqab crosses a line of tolerance for many people in the West.

There is something so overtly confronting about it that, for many, it trumps the sacred Western issue of being free to choose what to wear in public. Also, for some feminists, such as myself, it also trumps common the feminist concern of having yet another patriarchal limitation placed on what women are allowed to wear.

Some would also argue that, if the burqa/niqab were banned, that would mark the slippery slope to banning all kinds of private dress and behaviour decisions.

I don't think so, as the burqa/niqab stands on its own as a 'perfect storm' of confronting values for people in the West, exacerbated by progressives' sensitivities about the West's ongoing war against Islam. Religious tolerance is a two-way street. As far as I'm concerned, burqa/niqab women who live in the West are showing zero tolerance for the sensitivities of the country that they have chosen (or been forced by circumstance) to live in.

Poirot

'I wish we could throw a metaphorical burqa over [runner's] "unattractive" musings.'

Applause! Love it.

I've only seen the full cover up a few times in real life, I suspect geography plays a role in that.

Its not the attire that bothers me, rather that it is in my perception a symbol of the ideas behind the attire. Its a symbol of views on human sexuality that I consider destructive.

Its a symbol for a form of religious extremism that is a threat to the very values that make this society worth fleeing to (and there are other threats a lot closer to home). Its the ideas behind the full coverings that I want think need addressing more so than the attire itself.

I don't see a case for banning it but I do see a case for removing special protections on the basis of religion. Any restriction that apply to the wearers of garb that similarly restricts visual identification (or vision in the case of driving) should apply to those who choose to wear religious attire that creates the same issues.

If companies, schools etc have dress standards in relation to the attire they should apply to the religious as much as to others.

R0bert

Killarney:

I do not think it is being a ‘concern troll’ to care for the plight of your fellow man. You seem to care about the plight of women does that make you a ‘concern troll’? If someone is obviously lacking in freedom then it is human nature to want to help them. Anyone who is beholden to religion is in my opinion lacking the freedom to enjoy life to the full. This is their right and I would never oppose that. It is also the right for someone to fill their body with heroin every day but in my opinion it is not in their best interests and I would like to help them get rid of that dependency if I can.

At no time have I expressed the desire to ban any religious garb outright but I think, like most people do, that certain styles of dress which cover the face should be banned under certain conditions. Anyone who agrees with this position is not necessarily trying to control women as part of some ongoing generalised oppression of women. Women do not have absolute rights in society anymore than do men. All of us have to agree to certain restrictions to our freedom in order for us to function as a society. Banning the burqa under certain conditions is not just another patriarchal ploy to keep women suppressed. Is banning motorcycle helmets in banks simply an attempt to further alienate and marginalise motor cyclists

As I have said before on this topic: "Don't judge a book by its cover". This can include skin color, clothing and lifestyle. Not only is it patronising to judge a person on these types of realms, it assumes or has very strong assumption elements to it.

This can include elements like: A person doesn't know what they are doing, something has been forced onto a person, a person is a potential terrorist, a person is being abused at home, someone doesn't know what they are talking about or is just plain stupid - all types of elements directed at them from others.

I know this myself - and it is minority groups that get targeted the most. In my case it is that I am vegetarian - 5% of the Australian population.

I'm still get told by my parents (one who used to work in a meatworks) - am I getting enough nutrients, am I eating enough per day, a few years ago we had a fight over my diet (I live alone) and my parents demanded I go to my local GP for a check up (which I did do), being told I should take vitamin tablets (twice this week) and when I first went vegetarian having a plate of meat dumped in front of my face - and after visiting a epilepsy specialist having them question if there was a link to vegetarianism, despite having epilepsy since about eight years of age when I was eating meat - and this was ruled out straight away.

People (I put into the 'majority category' like Emma S) selectively put change on the agenda and try and impose their views onto others that they don't agree with.

People have a right in a democratic country to be individuals - like you do Emma S. Don't forget that. I am my 'own self' and want to be able to stay that way and not be labelled by silly texts created by humans.

NathanJ interesting points given that you appear to be the same NathanJ who thinks that organic food should be compulsary http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6366#188359, the same NathanJ who thinks we should be willing to pay an increased GST http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6229#182118
, I get the impression that those views about free choice etc really only apply in your mind when it's choices on your approved list.

A belief in freedom to be credible needs to cover not just the freedom to choose things we agree with (or don't mind) but also those things that we don't approve of or agree with, the things that disgust us personally but which don't present a credible risk of harm to those not making the choice.

R0bert

R0bert,

If we took your line to those posts you could argue we pay no tax at all (do you agree with that?) or if there was no changes to food production standards or diet. These are government policy related.

Clothing - a government policy? Get serious. If you want to be told what to wear, you can sign a register stating you will change your clothes. You won't buy it.

Also if you put a further idea, question or post on this website, you can also follow everything and what everyone else says - but I'll doubt you'll 'buy' that either.

phantom

'If someone is obviously lacking in freedom then it is human nature to want to help them.'

Not necessarily. Often people who are into helping people (and countries) end up causing far more problems than they solve. It also means that you have to be selective about who you help because you can't help everyone. Ultimately, we end up 'helping' only those whose interests serve us best.

Just because I'm a feminist doesn't mean I'm into 'helping' the plight of women. I'm more into analysing the patriarchal system with a view to either changing it or learning how to maintain my own personal integrity while living within it. In fact, I don't have much tolerance for women who continue to kow-tow to it and want to lecture women who have moved on from all that. (I'm not referring to you here; I'm speaking generally.)

I refuse to see burqa/niqab-wearing women as psychologically imprisoned and needing my compassionate help. If the burqa/niqab were banned, they would have a choice to either stay in the house for the rest of their lives, or start going out and about with their faces uncovered.

They might also come to realise that such a garment - unlike many other less than likable public behaviours and forms of dress - crosses a invisible cultural line in Western countries and that it is extremely confronting to people with Western upbringings.

(And PS ... If anyone wants to hit me with a 'just because you don't like something, that's no reason to ban it' lecture, don't bother. Especially on the subject of the burqa, I've heard it all before.)