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 > Sarkozy and the burqa > Comments

Sarkozy and the burqa : Comments

By Kees Bakhuijzen, published 26/6/2009

France continues to place itself at the forefront in the fight against the rise of Islamism in the Western world.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. All
"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.
Posted by blairbar, Saturday, 27 June 2009 3:57:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 27 June 2009 5:25:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 27 June 2009 6:10:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by online_east, Saturday, 27 June 2009 10:13:12 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
'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.
Posted by TR, Saturday, 27 June 2009 10:34:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear 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.
Posted by blairbar, Sunday, 28 June 2009 6:09:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. All

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