Hi there LOCKHARTLOFTY...

Reading your thread I'm sure you'll more than likely, rattle somebody's cage my friend ? Nevertheless much of what you say, is firmly in the minds and hearts of many ordinary Aussies in our community, and with good reason I believe ?

We're rapidly approaching the 'tipping point' where we'll ultimately lose our unique Australian character, particularly if we continue to ignore these subtle social transformations to our customary way of life. It's my belief that political correctness has already abraded many of our hitherto hard won principles ?

In fact to such a point we're no longer capable of mounting an adequate defence of the ordinary secular or Christian perspectives that we've all held so dear to us all. For some inane fear we'll unwittingly violate one of those invisible boundaries of this thoroughly ridiculous 'political correctness' nonsense.

Which absurdly, has almost reached pandemic enormity throughout the entire Western World ? Worse, the enemy is now emerging from within, so it's somewhat a fruitless exercise attempting to interdict their efforts externally ? Moreover our intelligence community including; ASIO, ASIS, DEFITL, ONA, BCI, and ABCI all of whom have been furnishing 'solid product' to successive governments, of the burgeoning 'home-grown' threat of Islamic radicalisation. That has been emerging from within our communities, over the last quarter century or so ? It's only now, some of our over remunerated politicians have started to take some notice and act ?

Forget s.18c altogether. Repeal the entire Legislation, in toto !

Yet another topic discussion by bias authors.

.... As a way to provide clarity to this inflammatory debate, we should calmly consider the key schools of thought on this subject

What's inflammatory about this statement, this is Australia after all, and we are predominately a Christian nation, a fact they were well aware of before they arrived.

As for a referendum, why waste the money, just do it. We have allowed these people to dictate their terms upon us for far too long, in fact, we are now paying the price for our softly softly approach.

As a country, leaders should always put the needs of their own people first, then cater for invitees, not cave in to invitees and, if some lenience was given previously, this should not restrict our lawmakers from enforcing laws at a latter stage, essoecially if such laws are in response to actions by the religious group as a whole, for which terrorism on our own soil is a prime example.

All laws must be able to be altered, strengthened, even revoked in reaction to developments within our society. Because let's face it, it only became illegal to wear a motorbike helment in a bank in the early 80's, and this was a prime example of a law being enforced in direct reaction to a change in circumstances.

This law is no different as our circumstances have changed. They can still wear it in their homes and place of worship, just not in public.

Multicultural Meltdown
http://takimag.com/article/multicultural_meltdown_james_jackson#axzz3QYb17kjb

"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse. When people of the world look upon the confusion and atheism of the West, they see that Islam is the strong horse." - Osama Bin Laden

For goodness sake Jardine, use Tiny URL.

A referendum is required to change the federal constitution . The Federal Parliament has no constitutional power to regulate clothing styles except , if it were silly enough to do so ,in Federal territories . To regulate it in the States , it would have to seek to rely on either the external affairs power or the defence power , both of which attempts would probably be rejected by the High Court .

Changing the constitution or even a plebiscite , simply to ban Muslim clothing in the States , whatever the item of clothing is called , would be a gross waste of money [ perhaps $ 100 million for the referendum ] . Defining precisely what clothing items were banned would be a very difficult exercise .

Possibly , those who seek to prohibit Muslim clothing mean a
" plebiscite " [ which would not change the constitution , but simply encourage Parliament to pass laws banning Muslim clothing ] . It would not require a 4 State majority . Possibly , clothing bans could be imposed by legislation in each State separately .

If we ban Muslim clothing , why not baseball caps turned the wrong way around , pants which hang too low , exposing buttock tops and other breaches of sartorial elegance ?

Yes, they should ban the burqa.

It is the ultimate form of oppression. No sane woman would want to wear it. Why is not Sarah halfwit young complaining about feminist pig Muslims?

And how long before a man dresses up in a burqa and robs a bank, or hides a gun and kills people?

By all means pray to Allah or any pretend friend you like, but don't put the safety of Australia as risk, and don't belittle women.