Good for France! In the meantime, its neighbour across the channel continues to kow tow to Islam, harbour terror organisations,and sit back gutlessly while Islam establishes its first step against the West in its sworn establishement of the Caliphate.

I agree that the hijab should not be used as a form or oppressing women but neither should we be banning women from expressing their religious freedom. Nuns wear the same veil as it came from the same tradition, are we to ban nuns from this practice also ?.

The hijab is very different to the burqa which hides the womens face. Therefore, the burqa is a dehumanising garment where as the hijab isn't.

Also, the hijab is Islamic and its use can be backed up by the Sharia. The burqa is not Islamic but strictly cultural. There is no hard evidence within the Sharia that sanctions the use of the burga.

In short, the burqa is an un-Islamic cultural invention of a conservative, backward and sexist clergy. It should be banned.

As much as this issue gets used as a vehicle for the Right's War On Anything New And Therefore Scary, it simply isn't acceptable to dress in a mask in a civilised and open society.

Can I get about in black overalls and a balaclava because it makes me feel modest?

I really don't see any problem with Muslim women wearing the hijab but the burqa is quite another thing. I find it quite confronting personally and I have noticed children find it more than a little bit scary if it is the black variety. I cannot understand why a woman would subject herself to wearing clothing of that nature.

I can see the hijab would be comforting apparel for some women if that is what they wish to wear. In fact along with the Sari I find the hijab quite an attractive form of dress. Not for me, although come to think of it, it would hide a multitude of problems now I am older.

Sancho - yes, of course you can. But you might find it difficult to get service in banks! ;-)
That said, while I agree that steps should be taken to protect women from being subjugated in this type of way I have grave misgivings about any form of legislation to prohibit dressing or wearing particular types of clothing.
As has been suggested, while today it is the burqa - tomorrow it could be nun's veils, Brethren's headscarves, priests' collars, Jews' yarmulkes, Seikhs' turbans etc etc etc...
There are already laws to protect women from abuse, however, adult women should be free to dress as they choose. To suggest they only choose this because they are compelled to is rather patronising (although I don't doubt it is often true). To suggest that women choose to wear it because men may lose control is also perhaps casting your impressions onto them.
Encourage, educate, and allow them to choose.

"tomorrow it could be nun's veils, Brethren's headscarves, priests' collars, Jews' yarmulkes, Seikhs' turbans etc etc etc..."
What a good idea.
Get rid of all their divisive, exclusive symbols that they use to show how pious they are and how seperate from the rest of us they are. There is nothing but oppression and conformity behind why any of these things are worn

While we are at it I have a beef (lol) about the muslim and jewish food rules. Specifically the cruelty they practise in slaughtering animals. These bloody godbotherers are nothing but barbarians playing sacrifices to their imaginary friend with their rules of slaughter which are straight up cruel to the animals. Im not a vego or a rabid animal lover but just cutting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death is cruel and cruelty is always wrong no matter what animal you do it to. I doubt our systems are perfect but at least we attempt to butcher animals humanely. These godbotherers are just evil.

There's only one answer in a truly secular society, ban the wearing of all religious clothing and viewable paraphernalia in public. They all say their god is a personal god, so that's how it should be, personal and not public, in non religious and secular societies.

These women are compelled to wear these suffocating and demeaning clothes either by their men, guilt or fear. Why do men not wear these constraints, why do they dress in western clothing yet expect their women to cover themselves, sounds like fear and suppressive inadequacy to me. Don't forget these enslaved women are not allowed to talk or associate with men, other than their immediate families, otherwise they suffer the religious barbaric consequences.

I find the idea of the burqa reprehensible and insulting to all women, but all that banning it will achieve is further alienation of French Muslim women and greater divisions between cultures and religions. The women are unlikely to leave their homes minus the burqa, it is a form of security for the women, imagine how vulnerable these women would feel not wearing this covering outside the home. They have been indoctrinated into covering up, it will take more than a ban to change this form of conditioning.

As J S Mill said, "Encourage, educate, and allow them to choose."

And I would add; be patient.

The sight of priests wearing colourful frocks and carrying a burning handbag,I find more strange!

Kipp, so do I. I have no problem with any woman wearing anything, short/long skirts, head scarves, whatever, and I don't see that Muslim women should not wear what they feel comfortable with. But not the burqa.

If Muslim clerics want to criticise our women for wearing bikini, why should we criticise Muslim women for what they choose to wear.

However, the hijab is not the same as the burqa, one is a choice the other is a discipline enforced by men. Sarkozy wants to stop the practice of enforcement.

It will happen the children will not continue that practice of enforcement because they will be educated.

I would like to point out though if we were told not to go into a bank and take off our long coat and hat/hoodie, what would we do?

Razz, et al,

You cannot compare Muslim headscarfs and burqas to the religious garb of nuns. Nuns are married to God, the Church - they are dressed (or not much anymore anyway) as such to purposely distance themselves from secular society to support them in doing Gods work, by working with or for secular society, socially and spiritually. By the way, they assist people of many different religions - they do not discriminate. Muslims only care about themselves. My goodness, with all the selfless charity work that nuns do throughout the world in many fields. The Muslim female garb is something else and seems to be more of a symbol of political assertiveness and also superiority.

Why does Islam have to give other religions a bad name? Do not put all religions in the same category. Anyway, Islam is more of a political totalitarian ideology than a religion.

Nick Cohen, is another ex-leftie who has written a couple of books on being disillusioned with the left because of their alignment with Islamists who have totally forgotten what their original cause was suppose to be about.

Good onya Kozy, and Kees, for writing this good article.

I feel for them in the heat of Sydney and Brisbane.

Women the world over want to feel attractive, even if they would prefer not to be ogled for it. Some Muslim women in Western countries say they want to wear the equivalent of a Scout tent because they want to be treated as an individual, now why doesn't that ring true?

Still, if anyone has seen the Absolutely Fabulous episode where Eddy ends up looking like a large piece of fruit because she cannot find anything else that fits her, you can understand why sometimes it would be convenient to have a troop tent to expand within.

Then there are the savings on Mum, make-up and trying to control wayward pillow hair. Makes clothing sense when you put every minute into HIS kids and have no time left for yourself either.

Lighten up folks, the simplest explanations are so often the most likely and you will go crazy listening to the convoluted rhetoric either way on this from multiculturalists, feminists and xenophobes. Some women are devout, some have ego problems, some are lazy and others are just not into tarting up the bod to go out. Their menfolk would miss out for a fortnight for a thoughtless comment (your bum looks how big in that?), as would a Western man.

Now the pill-box with the mesh or slit, well that is another matter entirely and I would like to see its use discouraged in Australia. For a start it could be some hairy bloke under there. Then again it could be a thatched, wax-hating woman (joke, Joyce).

I don't see that it's politically or morally possible to ban the wearing of the burqa or niqaab in a free society. If women choose to submit themselves to the wearing of these ridiculous garments, then I don't see that other people's concerns about their status or religion is sufficient to trump their freedom of sartorial expression.

However, that is not to say that people who wear any clothing that obscures their face should have to be admitted to banks and other cash businesses where armed hold-ups are a risk, or on public transport which is susceptible to violence and terrorism, or indeed any other public venue where the concealment of identity can facilitate crime.

If you want to ban the burga because it's a specifically Muslim religious symbol, then you'd have to ban all public displays of religious symbolism - which would be inequitable, unworkable and incompatible with individual liberty.

'There's only one answer in a truly secular society, ban the wearing of all religious clothing and viewable paraphernalia in public.'

Yea we will all run around naked like many of the earth worshipers do or even better dress like whacko Jacko.

C J Morgan

That is a reasonable approach. The limits you mention are sufficient 'discouragement' from my point of view. There is nothing to be gained from a ban.

I am sure some of these 'issues' are made more complicated than they really are.

There is already far too much intrusion by government into the private affairs of ordinary citizens.

Still it is funny to think that Gran's flour bag bloomers might be de rigeur under a bolt of blue or black sail cloth. The hair could be as wild as Germaine's and no-one would notice. Who knows, burqas could be liberating for some.

razz4189,

You ask, "are we to ban nuns from this practice also ?."

"We" are not going to ban anything. Australia has avoided the violence and other extremes of Islam so far and, hopefully, for ever.

Nuns, apart from the fact that most modern nuns wear the same clothing as other women and, apart from a small cross, look no different from other women. The other fact is those nuns who still wear the traditional garb, do so as 'officials' of their religion; just as do priests with their clerical collars; just as imams do.

Sancho and his black overalls and balaclava is a good example of double standards. If he were to appear in public disguised like that, he would be arrested in no time flat. He couldn't enter a bank. Nobody would want anything to do with him.

Most Westerners, in their own countries, probably feel the same way about a fully disguised Muslim female. How do we know it isn't Sancho about to do a bank job? Rather than overalls, he would be better off wearing a burqa. Who's going to check his gender? "Muslim woman wanted for holdup. No description possible."

Well meant defence of overt and aggressive shows of religious faith is foolish. Muslims are the only immigrants to the West who are trying to force the host communities to accept different public and legal behaviours. Other immigrants have always kept their culture and religion private, and accepted the mores of the host culture. Muslims must do the same, for their own good as well as that of the rest of us.

'If you want to ban the burga because it's a specifically Muslim religious symbol, then you'd have to ban all public displays of religious symbolism - which would be inequitable, unworkable and incompatible with individual liberty.'

What an illogical exaggeration CJ.

As stated previously, the burqa is a corruption of Islamic theology. It is therefore more specific to the culture of sexism rather than religion. The burqa is also dehumanising if we assume that facial expressions are fundamental to being human.

And so, the only people likely to get upset at prohibiting the burqa are right-wing religious conservatists and left-wing post-modernists.
The same people who defend the right to female circumcision and all the other sad religious practices that are more to do with brainwashing than humanistic values.

"If women choose to submit themselves to the wearing of these ridiculous garments"
Dear CJ
Why are these garments "ridiculous"?
What are the parameters within which some Muslim women elect to wear the burqa?
I don't see many women from the most populous Muslim country in the world wearing the burqa. It seems to be restricted to some countries eg Afghanistan.
I can't see any reason why in a liberal democracy like Australia that women should have to hide their faces so they lose all their humanness. You might as well be looking at an orangutan.

TR: << the only people likely to get upset at prohibiting the burqa are right-wing religious conservatists and left-wing post-modernists. >>

Not to mention civil libertarians of any stripe. If the State legislates to ban the burqa because it decides that the wearing of it is sexist or dehumanising (or, in actuality, symbolic of Islamism), then why can't it ban any other form of apparel?

What about political t-shirts, yamulkas, turbans, hoodies, crucifixes, bikinis or reflective sunglasses? Where do you draw the line - seriously?

blairbar: << I can't see any reason why in a liberal democracy like Australia that women should have to hide their faces so they lose all their humanness. >>

Dear Blair - I can't think of a vaild reason in a liberal democracy like Australia why women souldn't be allowed to do so if they choose to. That this may be because they've internalised some screwy values via their family and/or religion is unfortunate, but that's the price of freedom, IMHO.

While we're allowed to do as we please within the law and our own ethical and moral philosophies, that also means being allowed to submit voluntarily to the strictures and rules of those lawful organisations, religions and ideologies to which we choose to adhere.

Again, where do you draw the line?

CJMorgan "where do you draw the line?", at the neck I reckon, all the complaints are based on wearing headgear of some kind.

Perhaps we will have to come up with a rule of "nothing above the neck once under cover". Easy to enforce as well. (We'll have to find the neck of some NRL players, but that's out of scope here)

We certainly don't want to subject anyone to direct sunlight if at all possible, children especially.

Would that be equitable? It stretches beyond religion and to things like the "hoodie", any law that prohibits those is going to get votes!

Just a thought.

Lawrence Auster: "Here is one good thing that Sarkozy is doing, and other Western countries should follow his lead. But let's not think that this represents some kind of solution to the Islam threat, because Sarkozy supports a Mediterranean Union joining Islam and Europe, he supports the effective inclusion of Turkey in the borderless EU, and he affirmatively advocates racial mixing as society's ideal. Seen in their entirety, his policies lead to the Islamization of Europe and the elimination of the white race. Sarko is, in short, not any kind of conservative, but a liberal and a dhimmi...

... the reason Sarkozy gives for rejecting the burqa is that it represents the "debasement" and "subordination" of women. Which shows that he's not concerned with protecting France from Muslims, but with protecting the rights of Muslim women in France...

Naive conservatives are of course excited at Sarkozy's hard-line position on the burqa, because they think it will make Islam more assimilable and less dangerous. In reality, if the burqa is prohibited, and if we, our fears quieted, allow a de-burqa-ized, less scary-looking Islam to gain power in our societies, Islam, once it has gained power, will bring back the burqa as well."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013495.html

I think that until we have a movement to stop the Islamisation of the West we should not remove "visible signs" like the burqa and minarets, but otherwise I agree with Auster. I thought Sarko was against Turkey in the EU but Auster isn't usually loose with facts. Either way Sarko is not "a party or movement where I feel at home" either. I agree there are "many signs" like the "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas!" rally. If an equivalent of Geert Wilders' Party For Freedom gets up in Australia I'd vote for it in a flash. Although Wilders will probably have to drop his race-neutral stand if he wants to stop non-white immigration.

'Not to mention civil libertarians of any stripe. If the State legislates to ban the burqa because it decides that the wearing of it is sexist or dehumanising (or, in actuality, symbolic of Islamism), then why can't it ban any other form of apparel?'

Society bans apparel all the time. For example, any workplace in Australia can prosecute an employee if they wear clothes that are deemed to be offensive. They may be merely sent home, or they can be sacked after a court hearing.

You are right in that it would be very difficult to ban the burqa from all public spaces. But it would be relatively easy to ban it at the workplace, and other similar areas. This would be a good thing as sexism and sexist ideology should not be a part of the workplace.

Dear CJ
You didn't answer my question:""Why are these garments "ridiculous""?
"...that also means being allowed to submit voluntarily to the strictures and rules of those lawful organisations, religions and ideologies to which we choose to adhere."
Yes but in a liberal democracy, certain restrictions are placed on people's behaviour eg you can't, if you are an adult, walk naked down the street. You can't beat up your wife (or anybody else for that matter). You can't steal your neighbour's TV. The list is endless. If the majority of persons in a democracy decide that wearing a burqa in public is offensive, demeaning, etc then wearing the burqa can be banned. If some groups disagree then they have two choices; emigrate to a country which allows the wearing of the burqa or submit.

The Burga has the distinction of having deprived the Yanks of Bin Laden who walks around Footsgray everyday in a Burga .

Sorry Blair - my description of the burqa as ridiculous is simply a personal opinion. I think that wearing a garment that restricts movement, vision and interpersonal interaction the way that the burqa does, would make life difficult in various ways. Obviously those who wear them wouldn't agree.

Lots of people wear clothing that I think is ridiculous - like women who wear stilettos and men who wear ties, for example. Baseball caps worn backwards are also pretty ridiculous, but that's just a personal opinion.

<< If the majority of persons in a democracy decide that wearing a burqa in public is offensive, demeaning, etc then wearing the burqa can be banned >>

Yes - just like the majority of persons in democratic Germany in the 1930s decided that Jews should have to wear identifying symbols and be subject to increasingly strict State control. Just because something is supposedly "democratic" doesn't make it right, particularly if one is a member of a marginalised minority.

We're talking about an item of clothing here, which in and of itself is only a problem to the person who's wearing it - except in situations where the safety of others may be compromised by the fact that it renders the wearer unidentifiable. I've suggested that it's reasonable to proscribe wearing the burqa or niqaab in banks and other cash businesses, public transport etc, and TR has also suggested workplaces - with which I'd agree if it can be reasonably claimed that wearing a burqa impedes the capacity of the wearer to do their job.

rpg's suggestion of "above the head when under cover" has merit, although I think that is too general to be able to be generally applied. For example, I operate a cash business in the bush, and there's no way I'd try and enforce a "no hat" rule (although motorcycle helmets are already banned).

online_east: Lawrence Auster - you are kidding, aren't you? That guy is a notorious lunar right wing racist with links to organisations like Stormfront. Not exactly a credible source on the subject of Islam, old son.

It is frivolous to ban the burqa without banning or at the very least, challenging Sharia and the conservative mosques that teach separatism (and hatred of non believers).

This is where feminism stands accused of having its cake and eating it too, or is that lacking in commonsense and ethics? There is staunch support for an idealised, extreme form of multiculturalism that sees conservative mosques and Islamic schools established, yet there is feigned horror about a form of dress, the burqa, because it represents patriarchal oppression of women.

It isn't because the burqa is offensive to some feminists that we should be concerned, rather it is that the Sharia is incompatible with OUR, the Australian population's, laws and ideas of equality and social justice. That concern will always be present and rightly so, as long as the 'traditional' or prevailing conservative interpretation of the Sharia is apparently dominant and is protected by an idealised, politically correct multiculturalism.

It is bunk that any earthly text is the 'word' of god. All were written by humans and all are at best interpretations of God's 'will'.

Muslims must take the lead in establishing Mosques that model tolerance and integration. Plainly that doesn't seem to be happening in France and it isn't happening elsewhere either. Why not, where western education and protection of our laws are available?

I don't care if fundamentalists exist in the world, as long as they do not presume to rule or bother the rest of us. Australia is a secular nation and there have been similar difficulties over the years with other fundamentalist religions trying to tell democratically elected governments what to do.

As evidenced by the Crazy Monk Tony Abbott, shadow minister for families (got to be a joke that one!) who rolled logs in front of the morning after pill on behalf of his Catholic Archbishop, certain religions still try to re-establish their previous power over us. We don't want more of the same!

Ban the burqa? What a gutless, back-door way of standing up for freedom, democratic rights and the rule of our laws, not theirs.

<< Ban the burqa? What a gutless, back-door way of standing up for freedom, democratic rights and the rule of our laws, not theirs. >>

Here's a first, I agree with Cornflower for a change.

It is a very gutless way to solve a problem. Freedom cannot be enforced - an oxymoronic approach with the emphasis on 'moron'.

Not a jot of consideration has been given to the women who habitually wear a burqa. Whatever their reasons, one thing a burqa will provide the wearer is a sense of protection and privacy. I can only imagine that a female who has spent her entire life covered from head to toe would experience extreme anxiety on the thought of walking outside in even a long-sleeve top and trousers. This is not an issue that can be solved by passing a discriminatory law. We need a sensitive, educational approach - no change will occur in the nature of the burqa wearing woman if she fears to go outside. If she feels supported and safe to relate to the outside world there is better chance of her achieving education, driving skills and social skills all of which will empower her to CHOOSE whether or not to continue wearing the burqa.

No one ever achieved a sense of self-determination by being treated as a freak.

The burqa's a psychological and physical restraint, a prison, designed to restrict, isolate, bar communication, transparency and social interaction, other than within the designated suppressive faction.

As for a feeling of safety and comfort, it's the opposite. Black body coverings absorb heat, restricting vision, movement and leaving wearers vulnerable to accident and attack. Burqa wearers shouldn't be given licences, they can't see to drive when vision is a few degrees straight ahead, nor control a vehicle with such restrictive clothing. What if the police pull them up and they refuse to reveal their identity, or in court, or when dealing with authorities. The penalty and psychological suffering applied to these women by their religion and debauched men is huge on any level, it's discriminatory, prejudiced and separatist. Those wearing it by choice, are those who wish to fracture society and force the implementation of sharia law, as we are seeing in Britain and other parts of Europe.

What social skills do you get from being in our society wearing a burqa, you're restricted in communicating, can't talk to men, go anywhere without supervision and 90% of the time only with a close male relative or female elder. As for education, they're forced into religious school and rarely get beyond puberty before begin dragged from schooling, covered and married off. Their sons are seen as superior and more important than them and have the religious right to kill their mother or sisters if they speak to a man outside the family. let's not forget female sexual mutilation associated with the cult of the burqa, or forced arranged marriages. Yep, lots of freedom and empowerment in a burqa.

The people have objected to mosques and schools being built, but it's the politically correct bureaucrats and elitist ideologists who allow these things to be built against the wishes of the people. They're the ones advocating more and more religious conservatives being brought to this country and given free rein, whilst real people have more and more restriction on freedoms and a say in the direction of our country.

While I fervently support the right of anyone to follow their heart, and despise laws that unnecessarily interfere, the banning of the burqa and hijab has more than one facet.

Conservative Islam severely discriminates against women, and while some women genuinely desire to comply and wear these garments, my feeling is that many women do so from marital and community pressure.

After I play sport, if I don't consume alcohol or have only one light beer, there is no peer pressure to have more due to the strict drink driving laws and the understanding of the consequences.

If the burqa and hijab were banned, how many women would be upset and how many genuinely pleased?

Freedom of choice means no pressure from the goverment or from society.

The only places to ban the burqa should be where security is the factor and for photo identity cards.

It would be more constructive if we put the effort into upholding the current laws in relation to forced marriages and FGM. These acts are illegal in all states yet we turn a blind eye.

Stormbay & Shadow Minister

You are missing an important point. Eventually new migrants adopt the culture of their new country. It can take a generation or two. But banning the burqa simply means that more women will stay at home (irrespective of how they feel about the burqa - familial and religious pressure is massive). Interacting with the majority of non-burqa wearing French will, in time, influence clothing traditions. Being the only burqa wearer among crowds is a pressure in itself. Adoption of the culture of a new country takes 2 or 3 generations for migrants.

Nor do I think you understand how deeply indoctrination can influence a person's self-image and core beliefs. As an example, look how many fundy christians still believe in creationism in spite of overwhelming and clear evidence to the contrary.

Banning the burqa will not solve the problem of integration between immigrants and their new country - it will cause greater divisions between muslims and others, because muslims will (quite rightly) feel singled out and persecuted.

It is a bit late now to talk about banning the burqa in Australia. If contemplating such a move it would have been wiser with forethought to have done it prior to accepting immigrants from those nations so that potential immigrants were fully aware of the law. It is a bit late now to change the rules midstream and swap one form of enslavement for another - an isolated existence in the home.

I tend to agree with Fractelle's comments above. While we may dislike what the burqa stands for from our cultural point of view (lets face it it is a symbol of a demeaning and backward culture and nothing to do with religion) I am loathe for governments to start dictating what people should and should not wear in public.

Integration takes time and I doubt that the grandchildren of the burqa wearers will be doing the same. The same way that those immigrants must come to tolerate the bikini on our beaches we must tolerate this ridiculous garb.

In my perfect world I would not want to see burqa wearing women because I hate what it stands for - it is insulting to both men and women - but alas it is not a perfect world nor do we live in a facist state.

The solution lies in education, integration and a war against ignorance. These all take time.

Banjo rightly points out there is much more that goes against human freedoms and dignity in FGM and forced marriages. Hear hear to that.

It depends on the content and who is providing the education. For example, Catholic education in Australia in the Fifties.

Fundamentalism can actually become even more rigid and extreme in the adopted country, even where it has all but disappeared in the home country. This could have something to do with the number of immigrants arriving around the same time and settling in the same locale.

Good point Cornflower. I could see that those countries from where immigrants have come could evolve away from the more fundamental customs while their counterparts in Australia and elsewhere perpetuate the old customs. But this is only in the short-term.

Education does not necessarily mean formal education - but the education we get from exposure and influence from a number of areas: contact with different cultural groups in school, at work, exposure to a different and more open media, access to cultural institutions etc. And yes to some extent our schools will have to play a part even if it is only to respond definitively to bullying behaviours based on racism (or any other form).

It is the children of today that will shape the new face of multi-culturalism in 30 years time not their parents of today who are more set in their ways. Time will also soften the edges of white Australians who are currently uncomfortable with 'difference' or see new immigrants as a threat to their way of life.

The drastically different garb worn by some Muslims champions the difference between Muslims and the rest. Moderates from any minority are those who keep their religion and culture to themselves for private occasions, and generally merge with the host culture in public life.

Most immigants in the past have done this. But not Muslims: they wish to be different and show their contempt for the West in every way they can.

Westerners who don't believe that world domination is the aim of all serious Muslims are fools. Muslims are using the freedoms of the West, as well as the West's lethargy and stupid PC tolerance to that end.

CJ Morgan said "Lawrence Auster ... is a notorious lunar right wing racist with links to organisations like Stormfront. Not exactly a credible source on the subject of Islam, old son."

Auster on racism: "I describe my own view as moral racialism, meaning a belief in one's own race and the rightness and necessity of defending it, combined with a belief in the moral law."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012031.html

"A moral racialist is one who thinks that race matters and who cares about the survival and well-being of the European peoples and their civilization, but who subjects his concern about race to an objective moral standard and rejects immoral racialism."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009452.html

Auster on Stormfront, 2003: "When I first got my computer a few years ago I checked out the various far-white sites like StormFront and National Alliance... some intelligent things I agreed with, I listened. But as I got a sense of the evil place... combined with the sheer monotony of their invocation of hate, I dropped them."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001646.html

I don't think Auster is the most knowledgeable source on Islam. But, in regards to the true nature of Islam, he is in accord with the most credible source - Dr Andrew Bostom:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8985&page=0#142709

I can't, however, refute your contention that Auster is "lunar" so I await your "credible source" that Auster is a "notorious lunar ... racist". I've been reading Auster's blog for a few years without noticing any strange behaviour so I can only conclude I haven't been reading on full moons, old son.

Fractelle <Eventually new migrants adopt the culture of their new country. It can take a generation or two.
Also from Pelican <It is the children of today that will shape the new face of multi-culturalism in 30years time not their parents of today who are more set in their ways.>
How do you then explain that the bombers in London were 2nd generation muslims.
The Jews in Germany never showed any sign of intregrating with the Germans.
Also the animosity between the two tribes in Rwanda went back to the 1950s, it obviously never stopped being there despite the passing of 60years.
History is awash with bloody massacres between different non intregrated groups in countries around the world whether they be religious or ethnic. Some of these groups lived together in peace for a while before these killings erupted. Don’t forget this country is only 2hundred years old and mass immigration is relatively new. Except in the case of mass white immigration(colonization) which resulted in the near extinction of the other existing race.

Leigh, I agree totally with your posts. Written with your usual clear sighted commonsence take on things.

Bring it down to the reason for the burqua.
It is to prevent other men seeing their wives, daughters or sisters.
That is what it is about.
Why they have such a hangup I have no idea, it just seems to be a lack
of maturity and indeed an insult to other men.

Now in view of Sydney's experiences with moslem gang rapes maybe that
gives a clue to why they enforce it on their female relatives.

This thread seems to have left the point issue. The issue is not the hijab, I hope nobody disputes Muslim women have the right to dress in the hijab. The issue is the buqua, a covering (usually black) from head to toe, with mesh to see through. This is a form of female dominance. It is not the overall Muslim religion that enforces the burqa, it is fundamentalist Muslims who enforce this form of garb on their women. Little men with big ideas. That is why it is wrong, and Sarkozy wants to change that dress intolerance in France. More power to him. The problem of course is the women themselves, they are so brainwashed by the dominant male that it will take another generation to finally have this filthy practice of male fundamentalism changed.

BS it is just the men. Fundamentalist Muslims are women too and in their households women are just as active and perhaps even more so in educating the children in the traditional conservatism. In a dysfunctional system all derive some advantage from things remaining as they are. How else can it be explained why in countries like the US or France, where individual rights are fiercely protected and law enforcement is readily available, that Muslim women and men maintain and promote, traditions that (to us) are limiting and self-defeating?

Feminist thinking doesn't explain everything and in some cases it just muddies the waters even more.

Sometimes we as a community have to be very forthright about the things we hold dear to us that are non-negotiable and we would if necessary fight for (not that it would come to that in this case). It is frivolous to convert this into a feminist issue, especially over clothing and it is even sillier to sit back Pollyanna-like hoping that 'education' and time will make things things turn out right.

sharkfin
I am going purely by the experience with Asian immigration which preceded immigration from Lebanese and other Middle Easter nations.

At that time it was thought to be the end of the world for some Australians and time has shown that Asians have integrated well into Australia society while still managing to maintain their cultural traditions. Later generations perhaps not as much having been to school and influenced by contact with their peers.

I think most people are aware there is a militant element among some Muslims groups and fostered by some ignorant Imans who are no longer in touch with the times nor do they speak for the majority of Muslims. Many Muslim groups in Australia are distancing themselves from those sorts of Imans. In Australia there are laws against terrorism and other laws that protect other types of human rights.

This subject is about the burqa not about terrorism. Leigh as a generally libertarian bloke, you would normally be jumping up and down if the government started telling you what to wear. Why is this different?

“This subject is about the burqa not about terrorism”

The burqa as with all religious paraphernalia is psychological terror, an expression of superiority and disdain for people not of their mythology who have an acceptable approach to public life. Make all the excuses you want for these people, who in this day and age are doing all they can to disrupt and force their psychological suppressions onto others.

These people look upon us with disgust and are pushing their agenda's as hard as they can, the burqa is a symbol of the depth of suppression, primitive and psychological torture of the wearers and children who are forced to under go this form of psychological and psychical health abuse.

Asians fitted in more because they're not monotheists, and have no trouble assimilating with a society close to their belief, reality. Earlier migrants from Europe were mostly christian and didn't force their beliefs onto our society as muslim's are doing. There's those from other societies who come here and maintain their cultural habits within their home, but the majority try to fit publically, unlike muslim's.

Muslims demand time, an exclusive place for prayers in the work place, most smoke, demanding more time for that and are prepared to discriminate against customers who don't fit into their stereotypes. I've worked with and treated them, they mainly come for treatment to enhance their claims for a disability pension. People may not know the high percentage of muslim's on welfare, compared to other ethnic or Australian groups. Many have more than one wife, living in separate government houses on welfare, all known to Centrelink with nothing done.

But if a secular Australian admitted more than one partner, they'd be charged and probably jailed. Muslim's are treated as superior to us, by our own government. Only societies run by sick ideologists act in this way, discriminating against their own to support their real enemies

So, I guess online_east is a "moral racialist". Not much more dialogue to be entered into there, methinks.

What about sharkfin and stormbay - are you "moral racialists" too, or just garden-variety Islamophobes?

Dear CJ
Sorry for my tardiness in replying to your earlier comments.
" just like the majority of persons in democratic Germany in the 1930s decided that Jews should have to wear identifying symbols"
I would hardly think Germany under Hitler could be described as democratic. Indeed once in power Hitler and the Nazis remove nigh all democratic institutions eg rule of law, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, ownership of private property. The list is endless.
My objection to the burqa and niqab is quite simple; in Australian and Western society exposure of one's face is a requisite for civil intercourse. When talking to people we look at their faces, not their feet. Indeed bowing one's head is a sign of shame or guilt. A smile or a frown can only be seen if the face is exposed.
Put your head in a bag with holes and see what talking to other persons similarly attired would be like.
I certainly recognize that democracy and individual liberty are not always compatible and that simply because a government is elected by a majority means that the minority become fair game for the majority.
Banning the burqa on public transport,in banks, driving vehicles is really no different to banning burqas everywhere in public; the very small percentage of Muslim people who wear these garments would still consider it discriminatory.

“What about sharkfin and stormbay - are you "moral racialists" too, or just garden-variety Islamophobes?”

Personal slurs are always the way of those unable to see the world rationally, goes with the ideology they are manacled to.

CJ Morgan, I dislike all ideology, religious or otherwise. I also understand there's still a majority of humans who see their particular form of ideology as real and the only approach to life against acceptable evidence. Islam is the current out of control ideology in all facets of life, whether it's a majority or minority is irrelevant, it's the outcomes which matter, not the number.

Morals are a construct of ideology and not real, I follow life with what I class as universal ethics, seen throughout the various living species on earth, but few humans. Then you can act and think according to the current circumstances, not under emotional or moral constraints. I'm against jews wearing their fundamentalist garb, nuns priests and any who represent the outcomes of the evil ideology they follow and represent, in public. It's the same if a king strutted around all the time in their regalia or the laughable upholders of justice dressing up like clowns and trying to act superior. Or the saying of the lords prayer in parliament, then they go and slander people, argue, threaten, abuse and belittle the people, whilst overseeing the collapse of society and acting superior.

Their all the same CJ, my interest's in the human psychology behind ideology, my only belief's in our personal ability to learn and evolve, beyond reliance on ideology of every persuasion. We need to mature as a race, you can't do that whilst allowing primitive beliefs free rein to disrupt and fracture. They don't have a place in public in our free country, they are alien.

Religion is a personal issue and we should be free of it in the public domain, or we are not free, just intimidated.

Apparently the Flemish towns of Ghent, Antwerp, Sint-Truiden, Lebbeke and Maaseik have officially banned the burka. The fine is about 120 euros.

Stormbay
I am not an apologist for Muslims or for anyone else. As an atheist I neither support nor decry any religious group. Someone like yourself who is a student of psychology would know about the fear of change or the fear of the unknown in relation to immigration.

Why shouldn't Muslims ask for a place of prayer at work? I once worked with a Christian man who would not work Saturdays due to his religious beliefs, his was one of the less mainstream versions. The workplace had no difficulty in accommodating his request.

I agree the government shouldn't pander to practices that go against the law and we have laws against making false disability claims, false insurance claims and bigamy. I agree these should not be tolerated but there are already laws governing those crimes. It is true that the government is remiss at times in enforcing the law.

When I worked in HR many years ago there were a couple of ethnic groups that we always had trouble with in relation to making false workers compensation claims - some so glaringly obvious it was a bit like watching a bad episode of Fawlty Towers. It was rife but those days are gone and ensuing generations have not followed in those footsteps.

The burqa is for me a symbol of oppression but after a lot of thought, it becomes a choice between one form of oppression (burqa) and another - when governments start enforcing and legislating what we are able to wear.

“Why shouldn't Muslims ask for a place of prayer at work?”

Why should they, when it disrupts business and demands special exclusive facilities in a clearly non religious business. I know for a fact they refuse to use facilities government and business have set up for religious people to conduct their prayers, they demand exclusive facilities. I've been involved as a consultant in a number of mediations in this regard over the years and find muslim's very selfish and deviate people. Muslims like most monotheistic religious people, are pathological liars, if it will get them what they want. Abrahamic cultists all believe they have the right to lie to non believers, as they don't matter and you'll find for muslim's, this goes double. Otherwise they'd fit into our way of life and not bring their cultural religious primitiveness with them to disrupt our country, which clearly they are doing, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

A religious person not wanting to work on a particular day is very different to demanding many times during working hours to be able to at will, trot of to their prayer room for whatever period they desire and no one is allowed in, not even the owner of the business. This is discrimination and prejudice on a major scale, yet the authorities support it with zeal. Those having non working religious days, are no imposition on the business as they keep it away, unlike muslims.

I've had one experience with a burqa clad woman, who needed a psychological assessment for a pension and since, have refused to treat any muslim after the abuse I and the staff received from her husband and other moronic relatives. I refused to fill their forms in as she wouldn't speak or answer me and I couldn't see her alone. To be honest, I always squirm when treating religious people, they are so mentally fractured, all you can do is have them prescribed anti depressants, as they refuse real help.

Personally, I find the prospect of the odd burqa-clad Muslim distinctly less disturbing than the attitudes expressed by stormbay, who claims to be some kind of psychological counsellor.

One hopes that s/he is sufficiently professional to separate their own idiosyncratic ideas about religion, ideology and morality from their interactions with clients, most of whom I imagine would experience their subjectivities very differently from the appallingly prejudiced sentiments that stormbay expresses here.

I'm an atheist who doesn't subscribe to any particular ideology, but I have found that many of them are useful as starting points for developing my own philosophies on 'life, the universe and everything', which are always works-in-progress.

Stormbay
So after having one bad experience with one Muslim family you refuse to treat any Muslims. In this case the person/family were perhaps attempting to rort the system, but one fundamentalist (if indeed that was the case) does not represent a whole religion. Like Christians, Muslims are not a homogenous group.

It would not be a far stretch to imagine this woman suffered a mental illness given the vulnerability of her situation and the extremism of her family. Many refugees have a mental illness and require treatment, usually as a result of their awful experiences in their homeland or in detention camps. However I understand that you could not sign the papers without having the opportunity to speak with the woman concerned.

Would your attitude have been the same if you had treated one difficult Christian or an atheist and their families?

I hope many OLOers managed to catch the interview with Malalai Joya on the 7.30 Report last night. What a delight. The only woman in a male dominated parliament who stood up to speak against the Taliban, the Northern Alliance, the drug lords and members of AlQaeda. And who was banned from the Afghani parliament after speaking out about corruption, extremism,discrimination against women and the need for democracy.

She is secular Muslim who believes in democracy and freedom of belief. Her election is evidence that many Muslims want to move on from the inequities in a male dominated culture.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2612972.htm

I apologise for not qualifying my statements and giving people the wrong impression.

I refuse to treat any muslim under those conditions, the same as other fundamentalist groups making unreasonable demands, limiting help. When I say religious people, I refer to those devout enough to firmly believe their belief and approach to life, must follow strict dictates to achieve any goal, no matter the outcome. It doesn't mean all people who believe in god, or any other ism, otherwise there'd be very few to treat.

It's the same with fractured mentalities, they come in every shape and form. In my experience real believers of any description are unable to separate themselves from their belief, long enough to see it from another viewpoint, as an objective observer. Once they do that, they begin to understand their situation and why it's effecting them as it is. They may not change the situation, but understand it from another way. When that happens, they're healing themselves with their own guided investigations. If you know your situation, understand it to your rational ability, with support you're capable of working it out to your satisfaction. I don't choose who I work with, it would defeat the purpose as I'm sort of retired and work for NGO welfare groups now, many religious.

When I talk of religion, I'm referring to the nutters of all ideologies, not just monotheists unless I refer to them specifically. I'd love to throw them all out of the country, but see no problem with secular religious people at all, they're no different to me. As long as we separate religion from the state completely, most problems would be solved and we'd all be Australians and not have some with their heads stuck in some psychopathic fantasy land and making people nervous. Negative fundamentalist statements and demands, which is what the Burqa is, are harmful to the harmony of all people, not just non muslim's.

The practices of some monotheist Muslims is not going to change and I can see where Stormbay is coming from when the whole family are trying to direct proceedings when a caring professional is trying to help a person in need.
Yes, there are many immigrants from overseas who need psychological help dealing with their ordeals. However, if one is seeking an honest assessment it is hardly able to be given if a group of fanatically over zealous people are all taking part.
On the positive side, I believe wholeheartedly that their children will work themselves out of this male dominant ideology.
Bugger the burqa though, who would know if there was a make or female under a tent of heavy black fabric.
Polititians in this country are too fearful of making a rules regarding this type of religious zeal. They are only able to make more rules for us longstanding, long suffering, Aussies. Why is this?

The main point that I think stormbay is trying to make is that:

Whilst Western liberal values encourage the freedom to wear or say what one wants free of coercion, there is ample evidence that most of those wearing the burqa would of their own free choice prefer not to and do so from pressure within their family or community.

While the banning of the burqa it can be seen as a restriction of freedom, to many it is removing the shackles.

As for the requirement for prayer, those that strictly adhere to it may find that it interferes with their work performance and if so will pay the price as far as career is concerned.

Thanks for the clarification stormbay.

SM I do understand your argument about removing the shackles but do you think a woman who is forced to wear a burqa will have any more freedom if she is not allowed to leave the house?

The best hope she has is if she has access to other people outside of her small group and to organisations that might offer support should she need it.

CJ Morgan, not allowing someone to leave their house is imprisonment and if it's voluntary, that's their problem not ours. If our cultural ways are unacceptable to them, let them go to where they are accepted. When secular women and men are in fundamentalist countries, they are forced to wear coverings, abide by religious laws and customs, or face the wrath of the authorities and people, that's not freedom of choice or expression, so why should they have it both ways.

Fundamentalists of all persuasions are exclusive, just about everyone they associate with is of the same mind and if not, they are rarely allowed contact or association without a minder, or snitch, especially women and children. These people can't afford to allow any reality into their lives, it exposes them for what they are, deranged. I've seen so much suffering by those trapped in fundamentalist organisations by birth or marriage and not really wanting to be there, but are so suppressed, their fear outweighs any rationale and that's what fundamentalists rely upon for power, fear, psychological suppression and doubt. You get frustrated when they seek help and are forbidden from attending, or manipulated into giving up, ending up on psychotropic's in deep depression.

The old saying give them an inch and they'll take a mile, is glaringly obvious worldwide with fundamentalism. The only way for a secular country to retain its identity and accepted free culture, is to rein them in and remove them from the public eye. Having this form of equality lowers their ability to function in dictatorial and suppressive manners. For a free country, we have to ban all things which threaten acceptable freedoms of association and accountability, otherwise we'll lose our lifestyles in the end, as history reminds us. These people thrive on double standards and suppressive hypocrisy, encouraging them only spurs them on.

Pelican,

That the men that force women to wear the burqa would simply confine them is too simplistic.

Men who restrict the women with the burqa generally also rely on them to perform the house hold duties such as shopping and general errands. Confining them would mean that he would have to do them himself, or allow the burqa to be relinquished.

Hi all- a little late but I've had no time to post lately.
Just wanted to say that I have a holy book that demands that men go around every day of their lives as the Dart Vader. Should be interesting and would stimulate my curiosity as to whom was under the disguise.
Would want to play the "Knock knock, who's there?" game all day long. Yeah, in fact my goddess thinks that men should disguise their voices and especially breathe heavily so that we know they're still alive under the disguise.

But seriously, whether it's imposed upon women by an imaginary being or by dark-aged cultures doesn't make a difference to me, it's as much nonsense to dictate to people what to wear as it is to dictate what they cannot wear, BUT wearing far too much remains a health concern (not being able to participate in sport, and also causes rickets and babies born with rickets) as well as a security concern.

Muslims need to be educated about these health issues as much as smokers, heavy drinkers, drug users, and obese people need to be educated about their particular health risks, especially when it concerns pregnant women.

Besides, we live with restrictions on wearing too little and these restrictions are accepted by everyone. If I run out in the street naked I'm sure someone will tell me to cover up (or not, depending which street I choose).

People go to nudist camps where they can completely uncover, perhaps there should be camps for those who want to cover from head-to-toe including their face as well.

And which lunatic Islamic politician recently said that women should only be allowed to show ONE eye through the slit as looking at two eyes would be too tempting for men?

However it is not really about the burqua is it? It is not about 'men' either. What we are really talking about is religious conservatism in Sharia law, mosques and Muslim schools and its effect on our way of life.

Apparently in the West it could offend our politically correct multiculturalism to be specific, so there has to be a Clayton's discussion with a dress as the subject.

Since when did we have to be so coy about the freedom and rights that we enjoy and hopefully would defend if required to do so? It is ridiculous to be hiding behind the skirts of feminism, pretending that the only 'problem' is 'men' preventing their women 'victims' from getting enough vitamin D. Other religions have held us under their yoke and we have thrown it off. With the Catholic church and others we don't even bother to distinguish between conservative and other factions, or apologise for our opposition to their continual attempts to limit our individual rights. Why is Islam being treated with kid gloves?

Good on the French! I am fine with headscarves and 'ethnic' or religious styles of clothing but the burqa is completely over the top and un-Australian.

Why? Because in our society and culture no-one covers a healthy face except criminals.

Come to our country and fit in or 'beep' off.