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 > Progressives and feminists have been led astray on the question of the burqa > Comments

Progressives and feminists have been led astray on the question of the burqa : Comments

By Andrew Glover, published 13/10/2014

Capitalism celebrates individuals as independent creators of self-identity through the way we choose to conduct ourselves, the things we choose to buy, and particularly in the way we choose to dress.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Poirot

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

Applause! Love it.
Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 11:09:46 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'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
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 16 October 2014 6:02:08 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
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
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 16 October 2014 8:34:55 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
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.
Posted by NathanJ, Thursday, 16 October 2014 3:13:14 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
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
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 16 October 2014 6:52:53 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
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.
Posted by NathanJ, Thursday, 16 October 2014 8:25:08 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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