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 > Veiled threat: separating mosque from mass transit > Comments

Veiled threat: separating mosque from mass transit : Comments

By Jonathan J. Ariel, published 6/8/2009

When the right to freely practice a religion clashes with the cultural norms of a society ...

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. 12
  14. All
Perhaps those of you defending the right to wear veils or burqas might care to consult some British or Australian government travel advice for Westerners travelling to Muslim countries?

"women travelling in Muslim countries should dress conservatively as a mark of respect for the host country's religion, customs and beliefs."

"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"

Isn't respect a two-way street? In which case, is it too much to ask that Muslims in Australia respect this country's customs and beliefs, that requiring (and let's not indulge in PC waffle about it being a choice or "statement": hijab is a requirement imposed by religious authority) women to hide their face or even dress as a walking tent in public is considered offensive by most Australians?
Posted by Clownfish, Monday, 10 August 2009 9:59:40 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
I'm with CJ on this.

Clownfish I would hope that Australia would not aspire to those same restrictions you outlined above. Personally I wish to raise the standards of democracy not lower them to match those cultures that might be classed as un-evolved or in transition.

The hijab and burkha are not what most would choose, and I hate what this clothing represents but in Australia I have the right to voice my concerns. Equally, the idea of dictatorial big brother governments legislating what we should wear is just as distasteful.

Rather depend on exposure, integration, education and multi-culturalism to eventually soften the edges of more patriarchial cultures.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 10 August 2009 10:15:12 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
CJ, I think most Australians understand that we are bound together by a MAJORITY set of beliefs and values. What you propose is a slippery slope to tribalism. Not to mention your suggestion that they prove their beliefs are "right" is contradictory - if all cultures and beliefs are equal, then who is to define what is right? They will always be right in their own eyes.

Therefore, you are saying that they must prove themselves right by majority standards, and thus implicitly admitting that there is a majority ideal that sets the benchmark they must live up to.

And no, it is not our duty to give way to minority beliefs. They come here and expect us to change? Would you support Australians going overseas and telling the locals to change to suit us? No, covering up your face is not acceptable in this society, and it is not a valid religious expression. We don't allow people to wear balaclavas on the street, do we?
Posted by benny tea, Monday, 10 August 2009 10:39:44 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.Perhaps you can give an example of the tyranny of the majority in modern democratic states.
why the word "modern"? if you're arguing principle then what does it matter?
All my comments on this blog are related to the wearing of the burqa/niqab in Australia in 2009. I was not arguing principles; why bother?

2.Or is it simply you both don't like some of the laws enacted by democratic governments in Australia and elsewhere?
."simply don't like". are you planning to beg the question?
Why do you want to know that? You can read read my comments.

3."in any case, how about laws against interrracial marriage? or is 1967 not modern enough, and Virginia not democratic enough?"
You are talking about the State of Virginia in 1967. The blacks after years of political exclusion, educational discrimination, violence etc saw some of the laws eg poll tax overturned and education facilities opened to all.
It was hardly an example of a modern democracy.
4."I can think of a very good example from modernity where a very civilised democracy overwhelmingly elected a government that subsequently exterminated a large proportion of several minority groups within its own population"
Please give the example CJ.
Posted by blairbar, Monday, 10 August 2009 1:03:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
blairbar, if that's not begging the question i don't know what is. you're simply on the road to defining "modern democracy" to exclude any such example. you think current "democratic" states are paragons of egalitarianism?

and, it is ridiculous to suggest that the disenfranchisement of american blacks (which still exists in a very real manner) had anything to do with the existence of such horrid laws. the fact of the matter is, the majority of virginians in 1967 supported a ban on interracial marriage. and the minority of blacks, and their non-black lovers had to tolerate a clear and abhorrent tyranny of the majority. it was only overturned by that horribly undemocratic institution, the supreme court, and then about 50 years too late.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 10 August 2009 2:40:10 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
Blair, I think you're being just a tad insincere again. Tell you what, I'll answer your latest disingenuous questions when you can show that you understand my previous answers - you didn't read that last link, did you? Here's a hint: most historians regard the "modern" era as extending from the first half of the 17th century to the latter part of the 20th.

Clownfish, we're not talking about tourists, and Australia doesn't have a dress code beyond having to cover your genitalia in public, last I heard. Most people I know like to think of Australia as a "free" country, as opposed to those kinds of place that dictate what kinds of clothes women may wear.

benny tea - we were talking about "rights", as opposed to anybody's beliefs being "right".

<< We don't allow people to wear balaclavas on the street, do we? >>

We do, actually. People do it frequently in winter where I live. They even ride motorcycles on public roads while wearing full-face helmets.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 10 August 2009 2:57:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. 12
  14. All

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