The issues you raise are complex, within the context of a complex and many sided debate. I feel the crux of what you write is said here:

"This attitude is embedded in a worldview based on hectic activism of saving and liberating others that requires a constant supply of victims."

I agree, when people form positions on issues, it is generally saying more about their worldview than about the topic of debate. Few people actually take the time to study and understand the complexities of a subject unless they are a serious academic like yourself.

Politicians unfortunately do not need to play to an audience of academics. Their audience is a wider public many of whom hold shared worldviews that can easily be manipulated by their leaders; including the one you have encapsulated in the quote above, which no doubt leaves most people with a nice warm feeling inside, satisfied that they are on the side of good and right.

Yet all around us every day in what ever society there are so many instances of individuals not respecting others or each other; which is what you are asking political leaders and others to give to Muslim women who choose to wear the burqua: respect; along with equal opportunity and the power to make their own decisions.

I don't give a flying 'beep' what Islamic women wear in their wonderful idyllic Moslem sharia law countries (which far too many of them are trying to escape - what does that say?)

However, here in MY Country:
#I don't want a walking tent entering my business premises.
#I don't want to communicate with a sheet with eyes behind a strip of flyscreen.
#I don't want to be on the road with another vehicle where the driver seems drunk or drugged and when I get alongside see it is being driven by a black blanket which obviously is having difficulties seeing the road. 3 small children in the car with it as well.
Here in MY Country:
#Criminals cover their faces to conceal their identity.
#OUR Culture dictates that we communicate 'face to face'

I have no issue whatsoever with Muslim women wearing headscarfs and full body covering if that is what they believe. I feel sympathy for them sometimes in the hot northern climate - especially when they are accompanied by menfolk dressed in shorts, short sleeve shirt and sandals. Makes me wonder what's going on - whether the lady is very devout and the man is not or whether he dictates she cover up but he doesn't have to?? Bet in many cases it is the latter ....

No Ms Guzeldeniz - Moslem women do not need a nanny. They just need to know what is CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE in the Society to which they migrate and adjust accordingly.

Well Nursel, from your photo, I assume you don't wear a burqa...thankyou for encouraging the continued debasement of women...

What is next? Support for Sati because to oppose it would be 'imperialistic'?

I just checked and sati appears to be a Hindu practice.

The arrogance of the imperialists did see the imposition of their cultures with some negative consequences. However, it did also see the abolition of canabalism, slavery, and infanticide amongst others.

From what I have read, the wearing of the burqua has more to do with what the woman's family and peers want than what the woman wants.

The banning of the burqua enables more women to wear what they want than allowing it.

That it is a symbol of oppression is another separate factor.

WTF?

Any form of submission means giving your need for power to someone else.

Are Muslim women submitting to their god or to some bizarre tribal custom?

The need to be seen (or in this case not seen)
in a tribal costume and the need to mutilate the
genitals of female babies have nothing to do with religion
and a lot to do with control.

When you actually believe that are freely
choosing what is someone else’s system of control
you have no freedom.

Nursel has the issue back-the-front, upside-down yet again.

First point. In this case the burqa IS the colonial export. The indigenous peoples of France and other Western societies are on the receiving end of Islamic expansion in much the same way that the Levant/Arabia was invaded by European culture in the 18th-20th centuries. Indeed, we can safely say that very few contempory Westerners relish the thought of conservative Muslim infrastructure morphing their homely suburbia. Therefore, the rant against the burqa is really a concern against Islam itself. It's just that the burqa is so obviously morally wrong that it is an easy target to hit. Taking on Muslim ideology as a whole is more problematic, so better to take it apart piece-by-piece.

Second point. All religions start out as a cult. Indeed, the only real difference between a religion and cult is the number of brainwashed adherents. Islam is a Mohammed cult in the same way that Mormonism is a Joseph Smith cult. Early Christianity was a Jesus cult, and Catholicism has added the cult of Mary.

Therefore, Muslim women are about as free as the Mormon pigeon pair who visit my door-step as missionaries. Not very. Their minds are controlled by a religious cult which is in turn controlled by a male dominated clergy.

Individuals sucked into a cult are not free in any meaningful sense, and the clerical perpetuators of the cult need to be called into question. In this context opposing the burqa/Islam is not 'what-not-to-wear imperialism' but is merely opposing a male dominated religious cult. This is good thing I think.

I think poor Nursel belted his forehead against the wailing wall too often .
I don't care what religeon or culture an exportee is ; although I do often wonder why did they leave their wonder country the land of Allah to come to live with heathens like us .

My attitude to the Burgah is about comfort my comfort ; what are they hiding from or what are they hiding ..semtex ?
How do I know I am not sitting next to BinLaden or some other Jihadi .

The French have my support .

Getting around covered up and furtive is not a requirement of Islam; so don't feel sorry for the idiots who dress as though they were living in some middle-east dung heap hundreds of years ago. Whether or not Muslim women '... can look after themselves'is not the issue.

Islamic garb worn in the West is an insult to the host culture: a sure sign of separation. People wearing masks and voluminous attire are also a potential danger to the rest of us. There's plenty of room for bombs.

Nursel Guzeldeniz is typical of many Muslims coming to the West who think that multiculturalism is a one way street, where the the newcomers don't have to make any changes; it's all down to the host culture to change and be 'tolerant'.

The sooner multiculturalism is knocked in the head the better. Nobody expects immigrants to drop their culture alogether, but they should keep it private, and fit in with the majority in public. If they don't want to do that, they should leave.

Another well-researched and nuanced article from Nursel Guzeldeniz - and which has attracted some entirely preictable responses. It always bemuses me when some people claim to be advocating for women's rights by telling them what they can and can't wear.

I've also noticed that this novel concern for women's rights is very often an acceptable 'veil' for Islamophobia, paradoxically invoked by many of the same people who rail against feminism in other discourses.

And divine_msn, it's not YOUR country. It's OUR country, and many of us support cultural diversity and the rights of Australians to dress how they wish - even if we find it discomfiting at times.

The article is remarkable for what it studiously avoids, which is discussion of conservative Sharia law and mosques in Western countries. If conservative Muslims are few amongst migrant populations in Western countries, why haven't the moderates been able to force the full integration of women into mosques?

Australia is far from being the fiercely secular state that the overwhelming majority of its citizens want it to be. Despite the lack of voter support for government concessions to religions and community anger that authorities turn a blind eye to certain cultural practices that are illegal, change has been introduced by stealth and without community consultation.

It is ridiculous for instance that it is permissible to wear a burqua while in charge of a motor vehicle. Who was the idiot who allowed that one through and where is the accountability to the electorate?

What voters should be getting really angry about is the apparent ease with which certain interests can achieve alternative interpretations of regulations and policy, and surreptitiously at that.

There is no purpose in the majority of the population voting at all if 'democracy' is only about a grand show at election time and for the remainder of the time the government kowtows to its favoured elites. The Rudd government is far better at 'never you mind' than Joh Bjelke-Peterson ever was and the consequences are obvious.

The article is long on individual religious 'rights' and short on community responsibility, community rights and community responsibility. That is to be expected of an advocate but it grates on an electorate that is required to pick up the tab for the collateral damage from weak-kneed government policy that almost invariably seeks to appease multicultural sensitivities.

Nursel
Are you seriously suggesting that all Islamic women have the power to overcome the control of a religion which dictates women's dress code and behaviour? That these women are genuinely free to choose what they wear? In your rush to condemn Islamophobia, you fail to acknowledge a greater evil. The oppressive nature of an Islam controlled by men who subjugate, demean and blame women.

From the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs Guide; Travelling Women:

--
In some countries and/or cultures, dress standards may be more conservative than in Australia and may be stricter for women than for men. The way you present yourself may affect the way people react to
you. To help avoid unwelcome attention you should take care to be sensitive to local dress standards.

In some Islamic countries you must wear clothing that covers your full body and a scarf over your hair. If you don’t you could be harassed or even arrested.

T-shirts can be offensive to people in countries with more modest dress codes, such as Burma,Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

In some countries, certain forms of dress are unacceptable at religious and other culturally important sites. Some do not allow women in at all.

In South East Asia, you cannot enter Buddhist temples or royal palaces in shorts or sleeveless shirts.

Shoes are never worn in Muslim mosques or Buddhist temples.

In some countries bare shoulders are unacceptable in Christian churches.
--

Our government clearly considers it acceptable for other countries to impress their dress codes on women from Australia: it therefore seems quite reasonable for it to impose our own dress code on women from Islamic countries.

First we were force fed Multiculturism as the way to go. Now it is being used to take away our freedom of speech, next will come the imposition of sharia and we will all have to suffer it.
Multiculture has come at the expense of our own culture, we are not allowed to critisize it-that is 'racist' , yet we must see our own laws and traditions cast out and say nothing.
Some of the traditional dress of newcomers is fine but that horrible black burq and its ilk should be banned from Australian streets.A more terrible punishment for anyone having to endure it ,I cannot think.

If CJ Morgan had read my post more thoroughly he/she would see that I have no objection to so-called Islamic dress (or any other type of clothing for that reason) so long as it is CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE.

The Burqa or any other face covering, identity obscuring garb is NOT culturally appropriate in my/your/our/Australian society. FULL STOP.

Go to Rome - do what the Romans do! No-one expects to visit an Islamic country and swan around in mini-skirt and midriff top or singlet and boardies. That would be CULTURALLY INAPPROPRIATE and likely to get you harassed at best, arrested at worse. (You better believe there won't be too many Nursels advocating freedom of sartorial expression to support your right to wear what you please either) SO - Come to Australia - leave your burqa behind. Simple!

Transplant Nursel Guzeldeniz to Saudi Arabia in the attire on her site photo and she would find herself in prison facing a couple dozen lashes (or worse) before she could launch into a discourse on the rights of anyone anywhere. (Leigh suggests Ms Guzeldeniz is Muslim. I would think 'not so'. Those I know who are 'liberal' still do not expose much skin below the neck or above elbows and ankles. She would be considered very immodest even in those circles.)

Australia is a remarkably tolerant society. If you don't believe that, I suggest travel to non-western (preferably Islamic) countries.

Meantime I am sick and tired of being expected to accept the UNACCEPTABLE because of so-called political correctness and multi-culturalism.

BTW Cornflower - Is it legally permissable to drive wearing a burqa? I would have thought anything that obscured sight would be out of bounds. If this is true our law-makers and the idiots who influence them should be locked up and medicated until they regain sanity ....

"many of us support cultural diversity and the rights of Australians to dress how they wish - even if we find it discomfiting at times."
Dear CJ
Do you support the right of descendants of some of your ancestors to dress as some of your ancestors did, namely naked?
Regards
Blair

CJ MORGAN,

Weirdly we are probably on the same side on this one as well. However let's test that theory.

On the whole I think people should be allowed to wear whatever they want. However there are exceptions. I think we've already agreed on another thread that Muslim woman police officers should not be permitted to veil their faces.

To what extent can employers impose a dress code? Can a public hospital insist that nurses wear a uniform – which in Australia would not be a burqa?

How about public schools? Can a public school insist that a teacher's face should be visible to the pupils? Can private schools?

How about supermarkets? Could a supermarket enforce a dress code that excluded covering the face?

Could a business refuse to hire a woman who insisted on covering her face? Or one who refused to wear a business suit?

How about courtrooms? Can a Western jury form an opinion of a witness' testimony if she has her face covered?

Could a bank refuse to allow entry to a masked person for security reasons?

It is these issues, rather than what people do in private life, that make me uneasy.

Steven's on the right track. While I think that the State has no role in dictating what is "culturally appropriate" to anybody, and as I've said before at OLO on this topic, I think that it's quite reasonable to prohibit the wearing of any clothing - including the burqa and the niqab - that restricts the wearer's capacity to operate regulated machinery or vehicles, or compromises security in certain situations.

So to Steven's specifics:

* To what extent can employers impose a dress code? Can a public hospital insist that nurses wear a uniform – which in Australia would not be a burqa? - As much as they do now. If there's a pre-existing uniform and the person wants a job at that workplace, then they have to wear it. Where there is no uniform, then the employer should have to be able to show how the dress impedes performance or is otherwise unacceptable. For example, a burqa wouldn't necessarily be a problem for someone working in a call centre or on a keyboard, but would be somewhat inappropriate for a bus driver or a public school teacher (although it might be suitable for a fundy Muslim school...).

* Supermarket burqa bans? Sure - but I bet they wouldn't in areas where lots of Muslims live. In fact, it'd be a really good way to create ghettoes - ban Muslim fundies from shopping anywhere else but their own enclaves.

* Courtrooms? I don't see a real problem with the burqa here. Evidence is evidence, with or without eyeballing.

* Banks? Absolutely no burqas - ditto with servos, post offices, train stations, airports etc. Anywhere you can't currently wear a motorcycle helmet should be burqa-free.

There's no need to get hysterical and faux-feminist about this. I'm sure that under the above circumstances most women will eventually decide for themselves the burqa really isn't all that practical to wear in Australia.

I am an atheist and I do not care at all for any religious but I have some problems with burga.
1. When a man search for a girlfriend or wife he has no chance for a muslim girl because he can not see her face, her eyes!
May be under the burga is a young or old girl , may be is beautifull or ugly. With the burga the muslim girls can married ONLY persons from their closed environment. WHY?
2. Humans comunicate more than 60% with their body, body language, and less with words. How can I be sure that a muslim woman mean what she says when I can not see her face, her reaction, when I can not "read" her thoughts? The burga not only block us to comunicate with them but makes Muslim women less credible as we can not receive their body messeges.
3. I do not say Muslim women are not so good as non Muslim women but when I see a Muslim women with burga my mind goes direct to bad thoughts, may be under the burga is a criminal, a thief etc. I do not have anything against Muslim women but under the burga could be hiden some risks!.
4. Is it fair sir for a nice, lovely, beautifull Muslim girl to cover her face with burga and every time I see her on the road to thing that may be she is an old woman, may be she is an ugly girl! Is not beter for her every one to see her beautiful face and the men to run back of her? How the lovely beautifull muslim girl can find a friend when she covers her face?
I DO NOT SPEAK FOR RELIGIOUS THINGS, THE BURGA CREATES HUGE PROBLEMS TO MUSLIM GIRLS, DAMAGE SERIOUSLY THEIR INTERESTS.
For me the question is not burga or not but how to encourage Muslim girls-women to stop using them.
Most Muslim Girls do not wear burga, in some Muslim countries they do not put anything on their head.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

My problem with the burqua and its relatives is that it is a symbol of submission to the silly fundamentalist notion that only the men of the family can see a woman's hair and that the sight of female hair is so inflammatory that other men could not be expected to control their behaviour if they saw it. This feeds in to the notion that non-Muslim women with uncovered hair are inferior, fair game, and in Sheik Hillali's memorable words,'uncovered meat'.

If covering the head was a universal and long-standing tradition, how do you explain the current fashion for it in Egypt, where twenty years ago most went bare-headed? I'm sure Egyptian Muslim women are no more devout now than they used to be, but perhaps they are more scared of the fundamentalists. I don't mind if Muslim women wish to cover up in accordance with current predominant Islamic practice, but not to the extent where it compromises security, health or safety.

Nursel; <France and other Western countries should also provide Afghan women with scholarships to study>

What about the Afghan men (whom I witnessed on one documentary on TV) saying they wanted to kill girls and women for going to school . There’s only so much the West can do in these countries when the male leaders have these mindsets.

As for the Burqa. If people in the West don’t like it, well why would they? after the attack on the twin towers and being threatened by men in similar such attire(Osama Bin Laden) Prince of Saudi Arabia in our own lounge rooms. Not to mention the killing of 200 of our people in Bali by people of this fundamentalist religion joining ranks with Bin Laden in his Jihad. There was a time when I was growing up where women never went to Christian churches or weddings etc without their heads covered, we wore feminine hats. It was expected that you would cover your head. In their sensible way Westeners questioned the need for it and it died out.

We in the West have only said no in the last 60 or70 years to the last of some of the unrealistic authoritarian rules imposed on us by our own church leaders in the centuries past and we have no wish to go back to any kind of authoritarian rule be it church,dictator,king, queen or otherwise, we’ve already fought those battles. That’s why we have an instinctive dislike of any thing that looks like imposed authoritarianism . To our freedom loving eyes the Burqa looks just like that whether the muslim women see it that way or not.

Sharkfin - you don't have to be in Afghanistan to hear threats of death or violence made against girls or women by fundamentalist Muslim men - usually in relation to some 'behaviour' that this twisted culture objects to. It may be about her dress, aspirations, associates or her objection to something her father, husband, brother or whichever 'senior male' dominates her life has dictated.

I have seen and heard it first hand here in Australia. While some will say there are plenty of 'Aussie' men who are controlling and abusive, our society condemns those behaviors and certainly rejects them as the cultural norm.

For a small but significent percentage of Australian Muslim women, complete domination is their cultural norm.

Do we accept this as part of our wonderful multi-cultural society or do we reject it as being both inappropriate and illegal?

Whilst not confined to Muslim sub-cultures, it is the cultural norm for some to practice 'female circumcision'. Also to forcibly betroth and marry off underage girls. Acceptable? Legal?

Most Muslims I know are decent,law abiding, polite, productive members of our society. Freedom to practise their religion is non-negotiable.

Freedom to pursue insidious cultural practices left over from some latterday stone-age which clash with both Australian Law and our societal values under bogus justification of 'religious belief' is completely WRONG. Even more wrong when politicians and others try to gloss it over as examples of multiculturalism.

The burqa stands out because it is a public symbol of those things most Australians with fair minds and concern for our Nation abhor. In any case, chances are the wearer is not thus attired by choice but by duress.

I've stated a number of times - Come to Australia and enjoy the freedom, prosperity and opportunities this great country offers. Carry on the best of your old culture but understand that if there are aspects that clash with Australian law and culture - be prepared to leave those behind. SIMPLE!

blairbar: << Do you support the right of descendants of some of your ancestors to dress as some of your ancestors did, namely naked? >>

Hi Blair,

Sure, why not if that's what they want to do - although it's illegal in most public places in Australia. I think most people are way too hung up about the human body anyway - particularly religious nutters, e.g. Muslim and Christian fundies.

Nudity could be a bit of a problem for some occupations too...

Regardez :)

"although it's illegal in most public places in Australia"
Dear CJ
My point entirely. We have enacted laws in Australia which forbid public displays of adult nudity. In parts of Papua new Guinea it is not against the law to have public displays of adult nudity.
We legislate what people can and cannot wear; such legislation reflects the underlying cultural values of the majority of Australian citizens.
Banning public wearing of the burqa or niqab would simply be in keeping with the underlying cultural values of most Australians.
As divine_msn said:
"Here in MY Country:
"#Criminals cover their faces to conceal their identity.
#OUR Culture dictates that we communicate 'face to face'"
End of story.
Regards
Blair

Living in a multicural neighbourhood and enjoying the friendships of my neighbours, they being from the wide populace of the world as myself, to see a masked female in any daily life situation, I find disturbing and see a barrier of human communication

My understanding of the cover up for muslim women was that it was a statement about the inabillity of men to control themselves. The uncovered meat scenario put by Hilali. Do I have that wrong?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20646437-601,00.html

If that is the case then perhaps the author might consider "Muslim women need to understand that men don’t need a nanny and can look after themselves."

There are exceptions just as there are exceptions to the idea that full coverings are worn as a free choice of the woman wearing them.

I did find an interesting piece (which still did not explain the meaning) in OLO's history http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3831

And on http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?s=173b8864eb53138f5a8dd734e9d916dd&showtopic=40562&st=0&p=649239&#entry649239

"The unveiling of women...imprisoned women in their look and clothing thus exaggerating their ascribed status as women, [while] the veiling of women has given rise to expectation of achievement and work. It has freed women from fascination of men with their look and also has forced them to compete if they are to enjoy their rights as human beings. The agressiveness and professionalities of many of the new veiled women generation are a pleasant welcome to the passive and patronised unveiled women of modernised generation. (Taken from "Cultural Changes in Male-Female Relations" by Givechian)"

There was also some interesting material at http://www.uws.edu.au/equity_diversity/equity_and_diversity/tools_and_resources/conference_documents/the_hijab_as_social_tool

R0bert

It seems to me there is more to this than meets the eye:
--We’ve had Muslim communities living in our midst since very early in the piece and there has been, up till recently, little to no agitation to wear burkas etc when and where one might like. Come to think of it, I don’t recall seeing burkas etc on the streets at all, until recently (?).
--Further, the cases where the ‘right’ to wear burkas etc have been made have been spearheaded , in a lot, if not most cases, by some of the most liberal Muslims –individuals, who you would think would not be entirely at home in a fundamentalist society.

I tend to think it has more to do with the gangism that a multicultural society fosters, than any real religious commitment.

I am unconvinced that those who don the burqua in Australia are doing it through any compulsion by their menfolk. Rather it is because they are showing their commitment to their cultural and religious identity. The burqua is the most obvious badge they could choose to make their statement about THEIR (not their spouse's) Islam.

What it also demonstrates is that in Australia the woman is the powerful prosletyser of Islam in the home and in the community. It is not some sort of Stockholm reaction to men and 'patriarchy', nor is it evidence of current subjugation by men, it is their deliberate choice. It also has much more to do with what they are saying to the community around them than anything else.

It is no surprise that when larger groups of migrants settle together they can revert to fundamentalist traditions that are even stronger than in their home country. Some traditions are positive, some less so and others run counter to Australia's laws.

What this should be saying to decision makers is to tread carefully and not take large numbers from any one country at a time. It is far better to be proactive than reactive.

I wonder what young men and women are raised by women who wear the burqua as a flag. Banning the burqua could confirm what they have already been told. It is infinitely better to enforce the usual dress rules that apply to everyone and make sense for their practical purposes.

Any host country that willingly accepts migrants and refugees has a right to set down rules regarding the cultural practices introduced by the newcomers. The host country also has an obligation to ensure that those rules are reasonable.

By most Western criteria, the hajib, when worn without face covering, tends to just blend in as another style of dress within a multicultural society. By contrast, however, the burka is very confronting when worn in a public setting where women's common style of dress is much freer. On this basis, I believe that Western governments are operating within reasonable limits to ban the wearing of the burka in public.

Multiculturalism as a belief system does not assume that ALL cultural customs must be tolerated. It's about trying to find some reasonable degree of mutual respect and commonality among many cultures who, for one reason or another, are living side by side.

Great, now some REAL discussion.

Cornflower,

I have pondered the Australian situation regarding the burqa. While I can understand recent arrivals still wearing the the dress of their fatherland (Iran, Afghanistan etc), I puzzle over the donning of the burqa by Australian-born-women; particularly converts to Islam. Why an Australian-girl who has always had the choice to wear non-restricting clothing like trousers or to dress up in something a bit 'glam' for a special event or night-out, would then willingly cover herself in a tent because she has converted to Islam; that really puzzles me.

I do accept the influence of "Stockholm-Syndrome" - like in the male-dominated such as Afghanistan (I thank my lucky stars I wasn't born in a country where women are assaulted for even attending school or walking freely without a male "escort" aka "guard"). Until there is a complete regime change, these abuses of human rights will unfortunately continue.

I also accept people may find the religion of Islam appealing, much as I accept people convert to Christianity or Hinduism, whatever, while freely admitting I don't 'get' formal religion. But to cover oneself from head to foot after a life running free under the Aussie sun, no I don't understand; it is confronting and a further example of the worst excesses of religious dogma.

That said, I do not believe creating laws to tell people how to dress is the answer either; that is a step towards authoritarianism.

When I worked in Public Housing I often interviewed women wearing the full burqa, while I found it difficult because I couldn't make eye contact or read body language, the women themselves were just people like anyone else, but I felt a kind of sorrow for them.

I remain optimistic that the extremes of Islam (along with the extremes of all religions) will eventually fade as people adopt Western mores, become better educated not only in science and the natural world but in all religions and see that no one religion is the 'true' one but take what wisdom is there and leave behind the superficial like dress codes.

Fractelle

Travelling OS I was told by Muslim students that the well-off wear quite lovely dresses under the burqa for when they meet their women friends at home.

I have no reason to doubt that information, but it has not been confirmed. It says nothing about what might be happening here.

I see the emergence of the burqa in Australia as a red flag. How might we integrate Muslim women in Australia to overcome any sense of separateness and isolation? The consequences of alienation could be high and be carried down generations.

Nursel,
I hate to say it, but your article is absolute crap. Why do you feel the need to justify Islamic culture? Since it closed the gates of ijtihad, it has contributed almost zero to human advancement – over close on 800 years.

You say “well-educated, powerful [Muslim] women would never put up with such dominating and stifling men." Oh really? Have you actually READ the Koran? It is FULL OF put-downs of women, stressing their inequality in rights and their role as temptresses of supposedly “pure” males. The Koran is a shocking book, which ought to be sold only in brownpaper wrapping under the counter to bona-fide researchers.

Islam has been less stifling in Turkey and Indonesia only because they imported the WESTERN idea of secularism. Everywhere else, and even with some people in these countries (like the pitiable and contemptible Abu Bakar Bashir in Indonesia), Islam is a vile, mediaeval, repressive and thoroughly offensive religion.

Some practices, like wearing the burqa and niqab, are cultural rather than Koranically-based (they take "modesty" to the extreme, and say a woman is PROPERTY rather than a human being). Many of the charming cultural practices attached to Islamic countries, like female genital mutilation, reflect the benighted backwardness and horribleness of the Islamic mindset.

President Musharraf of Pakistan was right when he told a conference of science and technology ministers from Muslim countries in early 2002:
"Today we [Muslims] are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race."

Islam is a distorted and garbled travesty of Judaism and Christianity, attempting to piggyback on them as an "improvement" and "final revelation". It is a lying, misleading, and evil Satanic impostor full of violence, repression and intolerance. It has generated a culture of sorts, but an inferior, obscurantist and repressive culture, especially since Wahhabiism became mainstream and took over the shopfront. It’s not worth defending, for God’s sake. Why do you bother?

blairbar: << We legislate what people can and cannot wear; such legislation reflects the underlying cultural values of the majority of Australian citizens. >>

Hi Blair,

While I think they're unnecessary, we do indeed have laws that require people to wear clothes that cover their genitalia (and breasts, in the case of women) in most public places. I'm not aware of any laws that specify what kind of clothing that must be, nor indeed of any that specify clothing that is not allowed to be worn (except in very particular circumstances, e.g. police uniforms etc).

If I'm wrong about this, please cite the laws that you think exist that "legislate what people can and cannot wear" in Australia.

Besides your factual error, your logic is also problematic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Australian laws that require adults to wear clothing of some sort derive directly from Christian notions of modesty. As such, they exist at one end of a spectrum of religious rules about covering the human body, while the burqa and niqab lie at the other extreme - i.e. the burqa is worn for much the same reasons that fundamentalist Christian women wear scarves and long dresses that conceal as much of their physical sexuality as possible, albeit taken to a ridiculous level.

I still don't concede that the State has any legitimate role in dictating what clothing is culturally appropriate in Australia. This is, of course, not to say that certain attire should be allowed where wearing it compromises legitimate security or safety concerns.

Calls to ban women from voluntarily wearing the burqa (or anything else) in public that are based on ideas of cultural 'appropriateness' are actually at variance with the very freedoms that are utilised to justify them. Essentially, people should be free to wear whatever they like as long as it doesn't endanger anybody else or otherwise impinge upon their legal rights.

Personally, I think that the burqa is a ludicrous piece of clothing, but I most definitely wouldn't support an authoritarian act by government to ban wearing them, except in very specific circumstances.

Cornflower

I have been to dinner at homes of a some Muslim women and it is true, under the burqa the very latest fashion - quite the conundrum isn't it?

But also gives me hope that the more Eastern Muslim people become accustomed to Australia the more chance that the burqu will wind up on the trash heap where it belongs - or recycled into one-person tents.

;-)

There seems to be a misconception that everyone is free to dress as they like without being treated with any suspicion or harrassment in Australia. This is not true and I doubt if it is true in any society in the world. If a dirty scruffy looking person turns up looking like a homeless person in most cafes or shops they will no doubt be looked at with suspicion or may be harrassed by being asked in a polite or roundabout way to leave. While the person is free to dress like that he WILL be regarded with suspicion.

If a person turns up at a well dressed conservative work place in short shorts and a skimpy top, they will be free to wear this but they WILL be treated with lack of respect by other workers, clients and managers.

Teachers WILL harrass students who don’t conform to school uniforms even down to wearing their socks turned down or up.

A person wearing a hood and looking unkempt will immediately be treated with a feeling of suspicion and dislike by staff and possibly customers in banks, and corner shops etc especially in non cold areas of the country.

So although technically under the law you are free to wear what you like, there are societal norms of dress in specific situations and you WILL be treated with suspicion and hostility if you don’t adhere to those norms. This is because by being unwilling to fit in, all of the above people are showing a kind of disrespect or contempt for the people around them.

Dear CJ
""please cite the laws that you think exist that "legislate what people can and cannot wear""
Adults, in Australia, with some exceptions eg theatre are not allowed by law to wear NOTHING in public.
"Australian laws that require adults to wear clothing of some sort derive directly from Christian notions of modesty."
No argument with me on this issue. Much of Australian culture and Australian laws certainly derives from a Judaic-Christian background but so what? That is a part of Australian history.
You haven't given me one argument to suggest that such a background should be ignored when framing Australian laws.

In Queensland a cabbie was fined $100 for the wrong socks.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,25792223-5013016,00.html

You wouldn't get away with wearing anything that looks like a Klansman's gown and hood - causing offence.

It is not so difficult to argue that the burqa causes offence and affront. There is no political will to do it.

If you apply the logic (?!) of the The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission it is possible to ban anything, because the definition is always in the eye of the beholder, but only if the beholder comes from a 'disadvantaged group' (which is also a subjective definition).

With the political correctness that is prevalent in Australia it would be easier to ban boardies and thongs at Bondi than someone wearing a burqa while driving a school bus.

Cornflower

Nah, too dangerous driving a bus while wearing burqa - no peripheral vision. Other things you couldn't do while wearing a burqa would be riding motorbikes - imagine catching the fabric in the wheels, nasty result. The same for bicycles. What about skateboarding, that would be very tricky? As for swimming, well the wearer would just drown wouldn't they? Abseiling? The first burqa wearer scaling Mount Everest? You couldn't even run for a train without risking a fall.

Also, I am not permitted to wear my motorcycle helmet into places like banks, and aren't hoodies banned as well? There is a definite argument against the burqa for the same reasons. Perhaps the compromise could be on the circumstances where the burqa may be banned - where identification and safety are crucial.

Also, I really don't think that Australia is all that PC we can't apply common sense.

Cheers

Hi Blair.

<< ""please cite the laws that you think exist that "legislate what people can and cannot wear""
Adults, in Australia, with some exceptions eg theatre are not allowed by law to wear NOTHING in public. >>

Are you being deliberately obtuse? My point is that Australian law currently requires adults to wear some form of clothing in most public places, but doesn't specify what - as long as the naughty bits (according to Christians) are concealed.

As far as I'm aware, it's quite legal to walk down the street wearing a Darth Vader costume or a Ku Klux Klan outfit. Sure, you'd be likely to attract derision and you wouldn't be allowed into a bank, but I don't think there's any laws against it.

From my perspective, the burqa is much the same. I don't see any more reason to make it illegal than for a Darth Vader costume, Ku Klux Klan outfit or a gorilla suit. People who wear them in public places look silly, and other people invariably let them know that.

There are some interesting points being raised here.

Could you for example walk up Glenhuntly Road Melbourne dressed as an SS officer? I would laugh at such a ridiculous figure but I'm not sure the rest of Caulfield would share my merriment.

I wouldn't give much for my chances if I tried walking in certain parts of Melbourne dressed as Pol Pot.

My guess is that "Pol Pot" and the "SS officer" would be prosecuted under Victoria's notorious Racial and Religious Tolerance (sic) Act.

Wear the Ku Klux Klan outfit in public if you wish but if you cannot prove you are on the way to a fancy dress party or have some other innocent excuse, you may find yourself charged with offensive conduct or something similar.

What is 'offensive' is usually considered from the point of view of the reasonable person. A 'mankini' in some situations, eg outside a school would soon see an arrest.

A burqa is offensive to some people and with some justification and any excesses by conservative mosques/spokesmen could swell the (anti-) numbers very quickly.

Here's hoping that it is only a trend that will wither away.

Stevenlmeyer,
“walk up Glenhuntly Road Melbourne dressed as an SS officer? I would laugh at such a ridiculous figure but I'm not sure the rest of Caulfield would share my merriment”

Better still, try wearing SS or KKK attire if you’re a member of a major corporation or academia . LOL (you might remember the kerfuffle over Prince Harry wearing “a German desert uniform and a swastika armband”– to a party.)

An angle that I find intriguing is that many of the women spearheading this, in the West, are far from the downtrodden/wallflower types. I remember the Sydney school girl who tried the gag: banning the hijab at a PUBLIC school violates my civil liberties – and won, was intending to go on to tertiary studies.& have a professional career.

Dear CJ
I wasn't trying to be obtuse. All I am saying is that in Australia we have laws that make public displays of adult nudity an offence. If the hiding of one's face in public is considered by a majority of citizens to be offensive enough to be banned (as presumably is the public display of genitalia by adults which is banned)then there is nothing inconsistent or "wrong" in our society banning wearing of the burka and/or the niqab in public.
Regards
Blair
PS
What happened to Spikey?

Seems the French are not the only people engaged in "What to wear imperialism". Not only is the Sudanese Government guilty of two attempts at genocide; it also lashes women for wearing trousers.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g2pg3n7WZPlmGI6nIp4Q2xjurESg