As hard as I try to remain supportive of our current Government, the stupid decisions just keep coming.

So now they want to ban the burqa from Parliament.

How many women are showing up in burqas that this even needs to be considered? Apparently none so far.

If wearing a burqa poses a security threat, then are our politicians telling us only they deserve protection?

There is no defence for such stupidity.

It's 'nikab', not 'burka'. The nikab allows the eyes to be uncovered, the burka covers the eyes with a screen. I live a sheltered life so I don't think I've ever seen a woman in Australia with a burka yet. A few nikabs, noticeably more now than a few years ago. One sees plenty of colourful hijabs, which almost by definition are not designed to conceal a weapon.

If Muslim women are restricted by their husbands from leaving their house unless they are wearing a nikab, then I would rather they are able to do that than to be kept cooped up out of sight altogether.

If the only way some women can get out and see the world, to see that nobody is rampaging and raping every woman with a short skirt or her hair uncovered, that nobody gives much of a toss about all that, then I would rather they were able to get out and move around, no matter how they are dressed.

As for concealed weapons, unless we're talking about AK-47s or grenade-launchers, anybody can conceal a weapon in their clothing, no matter what they're wearing. Maybe not budgie-smugglers, or poncy Lycra-clad cyclist gear. But that young idiot who attacked the police last week was wearing ordinary clothing, and still had two concealed weapons.

Not really an issue.

Joe

CH: There is no defence for such stupidity.

Exactly, & the Burka is at the top of the list for stupidity. Stupidity that comes from an Archaic Stupid Middle Eastern Custom. Not Islam itself. These people have come to Australia to enjoy what Australia has to offer. One of the good things Australia has to offer is the freedom to rid themselves of these stupid archaic customs.

If the men insist on the women wearing such attire then they must wear the same. We'll see how long the custom lasts then.

There is something suspect about a person who will not show their face to others. The face communicates half the meaning and intent of speech. If a person appearing in a place of administration or security with the face covered must uncover the face or be denied access, as their message has no importance and honesty.

There was an instance recently where some young traffic cop was under attack for demanding that a Muslim woman remove her full face covering for identification at a traffic stop.

I could not believe we could be so stupid as to allow anyone to drive a vehicle while wearing such vision restricting headgear. Not only must it dramatically restrict vision while worn as usual, but in many situations the head could move within it, cutting vision almost totally.

How can dark tinting of car windows be illegal, but the wearing of this much more dangerous garbage be permitted.

In Saudi Arabia, a home of such stupid clothing, women are not allowed to drive. Obviously they are smarter than us in this matter. We should outlaw driving in such gear for public safety.

I have a theory on the wearing of such things, & I don't for a moment believe it has anything to do with women's safety.

I believe that Muslim men, in that society of arranged marriages, insist their women were these disguises so no one can find out just how ugly their wives really are.

Yes they are to protect the egos of the men, not the purity of the women. After all, how could these clowns act so tough, if everyone knew their wives had to shave twice a day.

With all our laws now against freedom of speech lest we give offense to someone, I want these things banned in public everywhere. I find nothing so offensive as the sight of these things on the streets of Australia. Why should I not be protected from this studied offense?

Otherwise anyone who does not accept that these things are used regularly for hiding someone's identity, if perhaps not weapons, is simply a fool.

When I saw the mother of that young man who was killed in Melbourne appear on television I wondered what part her niqab had to play in his upbringing.

Imagine being led as a child by hand through the local shopping mall by a woman who was obviously your own mother and she was dressed like that. There may be one or two other kids in the mall in the same situation but you stood out like a sore thumb. Imagine bumping into your class mates from school and them laughing at you for being attached to this person who, for whatever reason, felt the need to appear in public in such a radically different style of dress. Children latch on to extreme difference as a way of bullying and isolating other children. That does not make it right but that is the reality.

Imagine going to school on Monday to find out that everyone had been told about what you had to endure and that they all joined in the bullying. You would feel humiliated and extremely angry at your mother for drawing such unwanted attention towards you. Imagine enduring such bullying for a number of years whilst your rage seethed within you. One day you finally become old enough to hit back. You have two choices you can denounce Islam and this may mean ending your emotional dependency on your mother or you can fight back against all those who criticise your mother’s attachment to Islam. You see their bullying as a hatred of Islam itself.

You choose the later choice and pour such venom into your cause that you are prepared to risk your own life. Where do some Australian grown terrorists come from? From family situations similar to that where they grow up torn between their emotional dependence on their parents and their desire to forge their own life free of the oppression of religion.

Has been,

That really is a silly thing to write. One thing that has struck me on the bus, again and again, is how beautiful Muslim women are, no matter what they are wearing. Indonesian, Pakistani, Iranian, Turkestani, Somali, Arab - all often stunningly beautiful.

I started up a conversation a month or so back with a woman wearing a nikab (she was wearing one, not me), who had the most beautiful eyes - that nikab didn't protect her from an old perv like me :)

I strongly urge all old men to use more public transport, it will make your day ;)

Joe

This is a bizarre conundrum.
We've always had certain rules that needed to be
followed in public buildings and Parliament House
is one of those buildings. For example,
they don't allow hats to be worn in the Parliament
House Public Gallery. I was asked
to remove my lovely fur hat on a recent visit.
The security guard just said -
"It's the rules." And that was before all these
"security" laws were put in place.
I believe though you were allowed to keep a head covering on
for "religious reasons".

Peter Costello points out in his memoirs:

"Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to take off
their shoes. This is a sign of respect. If you have a
strong objection to walking in your socks, don't enter
the mosque..."

Because the burqa is the most concealing one-piece veil
that covers the face and body leaving just a mesh screen to
see through - it is quite confronting, and
that explains the reason for the ban
proposal. Although apparently not every MP agrees with this,
including George Brandis our Attorney-General.
I doubt whether this will really deter any fundamentalist
or extremist who wants to cause damage.

Still, it is Parliament House, and the PM is entitled to
be concerned about the building's security.

Hey Joe, if those women were wearing burqas, please tell me how you discerned they were beautiful.

Could it be that the beautiful ones were uncovered? In this case, could it not have also been, that those covered so completely were far from beautiful, & in fact, as I suggested.

You did not answer my point about the stupidity of allowing anyone with such restricted vision to drive a car. Do you disagree with that too?

Now I just may have had my tongue well out in my cheek, when making the statement regarding the beauty of burqa wearers, but I see nothing wrong with ridiculing stupid practices, & this fool garb is truly worthy of ridicule.

I suggested to my wife that she should wear a buck over her head & she hit me.

Bloody violent women.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I agree with you about the beauty of Middle-Eastern
women. All the ones I've known have been absolutely
stunning - especially the ones from Iran and Egypt.
One in particular who used to come in regularly to
the library (she was from Egypt) used to have all
of us simply stare. She was so elegantly dressed as
well (Western clothing). And what a beauty.

Many of the objections here go WAY further than rejecting Muslim headgear on security grounds (if that wasn't the case you'd all be complaining about the traditional body and head coverings of nuns). Your objections and language used show your fear of, and utter hatred towards, Muslims who don't appear just like "you". Anything culturally different excites and flames your fear, bigotry and hatreds. Many of you people here, old timers it seems, are exactly what modern Australia is NOT.

That's ok, most of you will be on your deathbeds in a decade or two, leaving Australia to the more enlightened, younger, inclusive population remaining.

Has Been,

No, a nikab, you could still see her lovely eyes - and of course, with only that much showing, I had an excuse to stare at them :) We had quite a lively conversation, I was surprised how open she was, even laughing at my feeble jokes.

Joe

Dear May May,

I'm not an "old timer," and neither are many
other people posting on this forum. Besides what does age
have to do with anything? Nobody is suggesting
for example that you're some pubescent teenager
with little life experience. Age doesn't really
matter if the arguments are well-reasoned and intelligent.

As for the burqa debate? There are many reasons why people
argue against burqas. One that has not been mentioned yet
is the fact that we do have an institutional framework that
preserves tolerance and protects order so that we can
celebrate and enjoy diversity in food, in music, in religion, in language and culture.

The burqa is worn by choice, not as
a part of the Islamic relgion. And seeing as it is a choice
our government is requesting that for security reasons it
not be worn in Parliament House. The same would apply if
you were to travel to the Middle-East. Western women would
be required to comply with a certain code of dress.

There are countries that restrict
women's dress - Saudi Arabia comes to mind. Australia is not
one of those countries. When coming to this country you are
asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong
objections to those values, don't come to Australia.
However there are certain laws that we are all required to
abide by - and it seems that wearing a burqa is now considered
to be a "security risk." Few people would have a problem
with that - unless you're a man from the Middle-East who wants
to keep your females "in their place."

Hey May May,

No, not really. Most of us on this thread so far have been supportive.

On the bus, I might look dim-witted and half-asleep but I'm just watching, and I've never seen any hostility to any Muslim women; I think that would be slapped down pretty quick.

One thing I've learnt (at last) is that sometimes a Muslim woman doesn't feel comfortable sitting next to a man who is not her husband or son. So a couple of times, I've got up and given a Muslim woman my seat, even though there was a vacant one next to me. I don't think it is antipathy, just modesty, especially if they might be seen by a Muslim man and reported. Well, that's my take on it.

Joe

As much as I believe people should be able to wear what they like, as long as they are not indecent, I do have problems with women wearing either the Burka or the Nikab in public.
I feel they are hiding their facesand/or eyes for the wrong reasons, in a country that embraces democracy and secular values. This sort of dress had nothing to do with religion originally, and everything to do with ancient customs of men keeping 'their' women only for their view alone.

The women who wear their traditional dress, including scarves that cover their heads, but not their face or eyes, look lovely. I don't see how covering their whole face, to let everyone know what religion they follow, is needed. I also don't understand why their male family members don't wear traditional dress too.

However, women in this country should be free to wear what they like unless it is
against the law. I didn't like the way the PM handled the speech he gave on this subject.
He could inflame an already upset Muslim community.
No one ever went on about Catholic nuns of Irish descent hiding bombs under their habits!

Either Abbott goes ahead and proposes a law that prohibits all face-coverings of any kind in high security areas (many people of Asian appearance like to wear masks, and bikies often leave helmuts on as well), or he should just leave it alone.

For once I agree with Foxy,

If I tried to enter parliament (or a bank) with a full face helmet, balaclava, or anything else that obscured my face, I would be prevented from entering. The issue of the wearing of Burqas in a security environment needs to be separated from the right to wear religious garb in public places.

Dear May May, Nuns lost their Habits in the 1970's. Been living under a rock, by any chance?

MM: Anything culturally different excites and flames your fear, bigotry and hatreds.

Not true, The attitude that comes with it does.

Things that don't inflame, Irish dancing, Line dancing, Italian/Greek/Indian/Asian/Lebanese/ any sort of Food, Scottish/Irish Kilts on Burns & Paddys Day & lots of other things that "aren't" insisting that Australian Culture has to change to meet their expectations.

Things that do inflame me, being told that Australians are, Rapists/Infidels/Unclean meat, etc. Not to mention Xmas/Easter, as it upsets some people in certain communities. Not being able to walk around anywhere in Australia I choose without being spat at & abused E.g; Lakemba, etc. Drug pushers & Car rebirthers. People training Terrorists to kill Australians.

MM: Many of you people here, old timers it seems, are exactly what modern Australia is NOT.

& Ageists.

Oh! that was Bucket, not Buck. Just in case you missed it.

Tony Abbott is quoted (today's Australian) as saying: "the government will not tell people what they can wear in a free society."

Really?

So I can wear a bikini into a law court, a balaclava into a bank, and walk naked down to the shops on a warm sunny day?

Maybe 'the government' has not told me I can't wear (or not wear) these things, but I suspect the police would act pretty fast to stop me.

After all, if you able in a free society to totally cover your body and face, surely you should also be able to totally uncover it.

Joe,
You'd have to have a death wish or be off your rocker to harass Islamic women in the street, around here it'd be nothing more than an experiment to see how many broken bones and ruptured organs you'd receive at the hands of Muslim men before the Police arrived to rescue you.

Apart from repeating that I don't want to live in the type of society which bans clothing one thing is noticeable on both the pro and con side.
Everyone takes veiled women seriously, which is predictable because being taken seriously is the whole point of covering up, it's a known fact that the more modest a person's dress the more seriously people take them, that goes for men and women.

My first post on this topic was directed solely at the several posters who filled their posts with the language of fear, paranoia, intolerance and hate. I should have made that more clear.

Jayb, nuns most certainly did NOT lose their habits in the 70s. There's still orders today that wear full, traditional head and body coverings. The only part of the body that's on display is a little bit of the front of the face. My sister was one such nun until her death a few years ago. Only the "majority" of orders don't wear full traditional garb.

Foxy, if you support the banning of the burqa/nikab/hijab and other such headgear in Parliament House purely on security grounds, it follows that using the same logic you would also support the banning of traditional Christian nun garb in Parliament House as well. Do you?

Loudmouth, you mention that a Muslim man might "report" a woman who is found sitting next to a man on a bus who is not her husband. This is unfortunately a "stereotype" that a lot of people in Australia believe. Just as there are a tiny minority of strict, irrational, dominating and fundamentalist Christians in Australia, the same also applies to Muslims. It also applies that not ALL Christians are like this, and exactly the same applies to Muslims ... they are not ALL like that. The dozens of Muslims I know wouldn't give a damn if their wives sat next to a man on a bus. They are no different to the average Ausie bloke, just like most Christian men are no different to the average Ausie bloke.

But the less enlightened Ausies like to believe everything that Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt and the Daily Telegraph preaches to them. It feeds their fear and paranoia, and provides lots of income for this backward branch of the media.

Hey May May,

" Muslims ... they are not ALL like that."

I'm certainly not saying that they are, but I wouldn't want to put a Muslim woman in an awkward position, so just in case, I'll give up my seat. It usually is rewarded by a smile, and even a conversation. It's a lovely way to pass the time on a bus. And free too, for old farts like me !

Joe

Actually it's quite interesting - with the new rules in Parliament.

That even though a Muslim woman with a facial covering will go through a comprehensive security scan at the entrance of Parliament - and allowed in, she will then be forced to sit "behind glass"...even though security has passed her to be in that place.

Poirot,

I haven't seen the guidelines, but do such restriction apply ONLY to Muslim women with nikabs ? With hijabs ? Not to motor-cyclists and their helmets ? Not to balaklavas ? To Sikhs with turbans ? To Muslim women in Western dress ? Or just to Muslim women, per se ?

I would be grateful for a fuller description of the new rules.

Cheers,

Joe

I have noticed the occasional woman wearing men's suites in Parliament. Maybe we should outlaw that to stop the young from being so confused!

Hi Runner,

OR male members (no pun intended) could be allowed to wear women's clothes alongside female MPs wearing men's clothes. Yes, probably too confusing.

It might work better in the British Houses of Parliament.

Joe

Only confusing to the "oldies" here.

JOM: Everyone takes veiled women seriously, which is predictable because being taken seriously is the whole point of covering up, it's a known fact that the more modest a person's dress the more seriously people take them, that goes for men and women.

What a load of Cods-wollop.

JOM: I don't want to live in the type of society which bans clothing one thing is noticeable on both the pro and con side.

I wouldn't want to live in a Country that forces women to cover up to the extent that the Burka/Hijab/Nikab does. Now don't tell me that it's voluntary. I bet if one of these women decided to go into the street dressed in an ordinary Australian type dress we'd find her on a rubbish tip with her throat slashed.

MM: My sister was one such nun until her death a few years ago.

Could you enlighten me as to the Order of Nuns this was, please. I suppose some very old Nuns in Nursing Homes may have retained their Habits but they were not required to & most didn't. There are a number that visit my next door neighbour & stay a few days. I'll ask next time they come. They usually dressed in Trackie Dackies & are good fun even though they are close to carking it.

'Only confusing to the "oldies" here. '

certainly is May May especially when pulling the misogynist card and wearing men's clothing. I suppose the Emily's listers are well trained in manipulating and playing victim at the same time.

Loudmouth,

Dumb question...

"....To Muslim women in Western dress ? Or just to Muslim women, per se ?"

I said:

"....a Muslim woman with a facial covering..."

What can you deduce from that, Loudy?

(not much, it seems:)

Dear Runner

I see your mindsets haven't evolved much:)....and yes, the oldest religions don't seem to fit in well with the 21 century to well, but the law is clear on this subject and the law over-rules any make-shift opinion. The down sides to this covering up situation, is the health reasons like the lack of vitamin D and its effects on the un-born child.(and Id thought Id mention that since your stances with abortion) So in any case, the birth defects of their children will increase and their population will suffer and become weaker.

This country is for all who wish to live in peace and not the bigots or anyone else who wishes to up-set this country.

These poor people have been living in hell, just cut them a break....and runner, we all know religion is man made...so what ever floats your boat my friend.

Tally

Hey, runner...I wear jeans/slacks and jackets more than anything else in the cold months...always have since my teens...bit of make up (these days) and scarves around my neck.

Got a problem with that?

Taking into account the Zeitgeist, women can still be feminine and not dress in bustles and frills.

For instance, Jesus dressed for his time and place. Do yer reckon he'd toss the long robes for a suit and tie if he were preaching now?

'Got a problem with that? '

not really Poirot. I don't really care what you wear. My preference and opinion though (this is OLO) is that its nice to be able to distinguish between men and ladies.

Tally

'I see your mindsets haven't evolved much:)....and yes, the oldest religions don't seem to fit in well with the 21 century to well'

I know Tally many secularist are happy to run around half naked in the streets and elsewhere. I mean secularist can photograph nude kids and call it art however to others it is child porn.

Not all nuns lost their habits.
Many Anglican Orders still wear them.

See: http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/m1778214.jpg
and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Bethanysisters.jpg

For instance, Jesus dressed for his time and place. Do yer reckon he'd toss the long robes for a suit and tie if he were preaching now?

Now that's is an interesting thought..Poirot, I mean the man was ahead of his time and truly above and beyond his classification.
I had the pleasures of visiting the state of churches and didn't that take me back. Maybe the dress senses has gone the way of new age thinking's, but you cant beat solid groundings of diversity.

Tally

Great stuff, runner.

I guarantee you'd know I was a "lady".

"I know Tally many secularist are happy to run around half naked in the streets and elsewhere....""

Like the bloody PM parading around in his Speedos for the media whenever the chance arises.

"....I mean secularist can photograph nude kids and call it art however to others it is child porn."

Yeah, why don't you toddle off and make a report on all the religious institutions of Christian persuasion being investigated for child sex abuse....there's a good runner. We'll be waiting with baited breath.

You people do realise that our Parliament has just decided to segregate people of a certain religion if they visit Parliament - even though they been cleared to enter by security.

Fine with that, are we?

I don't have any real objection to women wearing any form of attire, including the Burqa. However when positive ID is required, or a question of road safety as in driving a Motor Vehicle, then common sense should prevail. In Banks, Airport Controls, whenever a positive ID is required by police or any other authorised officer. It really should be a simple matter of basic common sense.

One thing that does confuse me concerning the wearing of the Burqa ? Is it an Islamic religious requirement ? Or does the husband of a women require her to wear it ? Or is it the ladies prerogative as to whether or not they wish to wear it ?

From a personal viewpoint, unless the lady herself chooses to wear the Burqa, it does demean or humiliate a woman somewhat, if it's mandated she wears it, in my opinion.

"I know Tally many secularist are happy to run around half naked in the streets and elsewhere. I mean secularist can photograph nude kids and call it art however to others it is child porn."

Runner, some are the best in what they do, just keep posting:)...lol

Tally

Hi Poirot,

Sorry, I misunderstood - I assumed that anybody wanting to enter any part of Parliament House would have to remove their face covering, whether they were a Muslim woman, or a bikie with a full-face helmet, or someone with a face mask.

So Muslim women would still be allowed to wear a nikab in the parliamentary gallery, if they sit behind a glass shield ? Sounds fair enough, alongside the bikies, etc. Pretty generous really.

I suppose the same should go for people attending court ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Foxy,

You wrote;

“There are countries that restrict
women's dress - Saudi Arabia comes to mind. Australia is not
one of those countries. When coming to this country you are
asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong
objections to those values, don't come to Australia.
However there are certain laws that we are all required to
abide by - and it seems that wearing a burqa is now considered
to be a "security risk."

How about we tease this out a little.

Many places in the world that have had little issue with a uncovered breasts. Some that typically spring to mind are Tahiti, Hawaii, Papua New Guinea, and many other Pacific nations. But the list is far more extensive. Toplessness was rife throughout the sub-continent and up through Asia and is an indigenous tradition right here in Australia. The tide of Islam and Christianity forced the notion that the uncovered female breast was obscene but there are still many places in the world one can visit where its sexualisation has not won the day.

If you were to visit those places would you feel the need to comply with their values and expose your breasts? If you were uncomfortable doing so should you be asked to leave or not to visit in the first place?

I personally don't think so but from what you have put it seems you might. Perhaps I am mistaken.

We have to make the distinction between 'covering up' and 'uncovering'. If a Tahitian woman was to come to our country then she should accept (what I consider as a twisted set of values) in Australia walking around with uncovered breasts is inappropriate and in many contexts unlawful so being asked to cover up is reasonable. If you were to visit some of the more traditional Islamic countries then covering up by wearing a head scarf is again appropriate.

Cont..

Cont..

What I don't think is appropriate is to force women to uncover. If you visited Tahiti or even stayed there as a permanent resident it shouldn't be obligatory for you to expose your breasts. Nor do I feel it is appropriate for force women who come to this country into uncovering past what they feel personally comfortable with.

But from what you have put it seems you do. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Costello completely misses the point;

Not wearing shoes in a Mosque is hardly an injunction from Allah. This is an Islamic ruling on the issue;

“The Prophet entered the mosque in shoes and prayed in shoes. Abu Dawood narrated in his Sunan with his isnaad that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri said: Whilst the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was leading his companions in prayer, he took off his shoes and placed them to his left. When the people saw that, they took off their shoes. When the Messenger of Allaah had finished the prayer he said, “What made you take off your shoes?” They said, “We saw you take off your shoes, so we took off our shoes.” The Messenger of Allaah said: “Jibreel came to me and told me that there was some dirt on them.” And he said: “When one of you comes to the mosque, let him check his shoes, and if he seeds any dirt on them, let him wipe them and pray in them.” … But now that mosques are usually furnished with fine carpets, the one who enters the mosque should take off his shoes and be careful to keep the carpet clean and not annoy other worshippers because of dirt that may get onto the carpet from the soles of his shoes, even if it is taahir (pure).”

I respect a woman's right to a higher personal standard of modesty full stop

Loverly weasel words, Joe,

"So Muslim women would still be allowed to wear a nikab in the parliamentary gallery, if they sit behind a glass shield ? Sounds fair enough, alongside the bikies, etc. Pretty generous really. "

It is supposedly about "security"....If the woman wearing the nikab has been cleared by security to enter the gallery - then why the segregation?

What is the threat if the person has already been comprehensively scanned by security?

poirot: Parliament has just decided to segregate people of a certain religion if they visit Parliament - even though they been cleared to enter by security.

No, these people have segregated themselves. There are Rules & if they don't wish to follow the Rules, Tough Titties.

Do you think I would be allowed to walk into Parliament nude. Would you claim Parliament is segregating me just because I wish to dress comfortably in the Canberran Summer. Get real.

"However when positive ID is required, or a question of road safety as in driving a Motor Vehicle, then common sense should prevail. In Banks, Airport Controls, whenever a positive ID is required by police or any other authorised officer. It really should be a simple matter...................Well o sung wu this is why we have these disruptions in what's seemly a committee visions of currant events which brings about the very need to feel soft about state/countries welfare and its peoples combine interests.

The world as one has started here in AUSTRALIA....lets continue.

Tally

Jayb,

If it wasn't against the rules...I'd call you an idiot.

It's illegal to walk around nude in public.

It's not illegal to wear a nikab in public - yet....

I am from the generation that grew their hair long in the 1960’s.
It was an affront to everybody outside of my generation. It was seen as a provocative statement of social revolution to owners of the Edwardian cuts gracing the generation before mine. Just to have shoulder length hair would exclude you from visiting friend’s houses, eating in restaurants, entering licensed and social clubs.

It would have adults that have known you all their lives re evaluate their opinion of who you are what you think and what menace you may be capable of.....after a while half the generation had long hair and that minimised the supposed “statement” if any that wearing your hair long initially conveyed....then it went back to being judged on your actions rather than the way you groom or attire.

I feel the same way in principal about the Moslem coverings...but not in practice. Every time I see a garment covering the lot I am affronted by the presence of an Islam with a “join us or perish” agenda. There are mosques in Christian nations but no churches in Muslim nations............the agenda is there.

So what about the Chinese people who wear surgical masks or those paper dust masks all the time? I often see Chinese women (and some men) walking about wearing a big floppy sun hat, sunglasses and a surgical mask, is this "confronting"?.

Jayb. You're worse than Hitler! Old Goebbels wrote a great article about people like you, it's called "More morality, less moralism!" and in it he takes to task the prudes and wowsers who want to tell women what to wear and how to behave.
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb60.htm

You obviously don't live near many Muslims, I see Lebanese women out power walking with their hijab on, a loose shirt which comes down below the derriere and yoga pants, they do most of the things other women do, they go to Fernwood or Curves to exercise in privacy, just like a lot of other women. They socialise,go for coffee during the day, take the littlies to the park, go to the movies, hang around at the shopping centre, there's nothing about them which says "oppressed".
And surprise! I'm told they also take off the outer wear when they get home and slob around in their t-shirts and tracky dacks like the rest of us!
There's a lot wrong with multiculturalism but the way people dress is such a minor issue it's not even worth thinking about.

Poirot - "You people do realise that our Parliament has just decided to segregate people of a certain religion if they visit Parliament - even though they been cleared to enter by security."

Is Parliament segregating against a religion or attire? Assuming you are not Muslim, if you wore a burqa to Parliament you would be subject to the same rules. So Parliament is against a garment, not the religion.

The hijab and burqa are not an Islamic requirement; they are both Arabic cultural dress (dating back a very long time) that happen to be the style of choice by people of a certain religion. Unfortunately for the Arab women in those countries, and the ones who have moved to the West, their culture dictates their dress code, not their religion... they don't really have a choice.

Dear SteeleRedux,

There is no law that expects you to bare your breasts
in public in Tahiti, Hawaii or PNG, so your argument
does not quite wash.

The PM is not banning the wearing
of burqas as such - only that for security reasons they be
banned in Parliament House. Which again goes back to
our legislature and the laws that we are all expected
to abide by.

Burqas are not a common sight as only a minority of
Muslim women wear them - and if burqas can be removed when
ID is required for security reasons (they would have to
be done by another woman and not in the presence of men),
then I guess that would expunge the question of being a
"security risk." However, this subject I'm sure is not
settled as yet - and we have to wait and see what the
final decision will be.

The point being made is dthat there should be one law
that we are all expected to abide by in this country.
Changing laws to accommodate certain groups sets a
precedent that we seriously need to think about.
In my opinion at least.

Years ago when I got my first motorcycle I decided to bank my wages on the way home. I parked the bike nearby and entered the doors of the Bank only to be ushered out by security and told to remove my helmet. Yes they could see my eyes and hands but security required no face coverings. Why? It is a matter of security, try wearing a helmet and all weather coat into Parliament house and you will get the same security guards ushering you out.

Can somebody please inform me of the number of "terrorist offences" committed by burqa clad Muslim women in the entire history of Australia?

Please list all the offences, naming names.

I bet you can't name ONE.

CASE CLOSED.

Foxy,

"The PM is not banning the wearing
of burqas as such - only that for security reasons they be
banned in Parliament House."

Explain to me why, if a woman wearing a burqa or nikab is cleared by security to enter Parliament House, she should be forcibly segregated behind a glass barrier?

"...Which again goes back to
our legislature and the laws that we are all expected
to abide by."

It is not a "law" It is an "interim rule" which was cooked up by the govt and "approved" by Bronwyn Bishop and Senate President Stephen Parry.

"The PM is not banning the wearing
of burqas as such..."

Oh my, how big of him!

You do see what he/they are doing - do you not?

Continuing the vilification of a certain section of society and doing their damnedest to destabilise and cause division.

Look at what they've managed to achieve in the mere space of a few weeks.

Unbelievable!

Whoa!

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-kills-off-parliament-house-burqa-ban-20141002-10pjoh.html

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott will kill off a plan proposed by Speaker Bronwyn Bishop and Senate President Stephen Parry that would require women wearing head coverings like burqas to be separated from the public and forced to sit with schoolchildren in a glassed-off area of federal Parliament's public galleries.

The move comes just hours after the Parliament's presiding officers announced the security measures on Thursday

In an embarrassing back-down for the government, Fairfax Media has learnt Mr Abbott will ask Ms Bishop and Senator Pary to reconsider the proposal after an extraordinary backlash."

Okay...so Abbott doesn't like the smell of the backlash - so he's canned it.

(Sucked in Credlin and BBishop and the rest of the tribe)

May May,

There has never been one case, and there won't be, now.

Is Mise, what you "meant" to write was ... "There has never been one case, and there won't be now because Muslim women in burqas have historically, and currently, shown themselves in Australia to NOT be terrorists".

Thanks for your 100% agreement with me Is Mise.

Poirot, that's such good news. Yes, The PM is intervening and the Parliament House segregation will not go ahead.

If it had gone ahead what's next? Segregation on buses, restaurants, schools, theatres? Yep, it would have been the first step for the religious bigots to impose their bigotry on society.

Commonsense and freedom has won. Congratulations to our PM Tony Abbott.

poirot: Continuing the vilification of a certain section of society and doing their damnedest to destabilise and cause division.

Yes, this is terrible. If I was them, I'd throw a Tanty & a Huff. I'd go back to where I wouldn't be vilified & treated so badly, etc. Somewhere I could wear my Burka, etc, in peace, & be appreciated.

Dear Poirot,

I don't have a problem with Muslim women wearing
the hijab (headscarf) or the niqab (a veil for the
face that leaves the area around the eyes clear).
But I do have a problem with the burqa which is
total concealment covering the face and body leaving
just a mesh screen to see through. However, as you
pointed out this is all mute now anyway as the PM
has had a change of mind.

Jayb...so you like the fact that we should all go back to our own countries before we come together...interesting.

So, when is it time?

Tony...our leader, has sometimes....foot-in-mouth...he does not have fear in mind as you do. This old religion is what it is....old and out of date.

The day the earth stood still.......just a movie I know....but it shows how primitive we really are.

I can only give you facts, with a bit of fiction:)

http://tinyurl.com/l245etf

They will come-form...or?

Its not your mission?

The "WE" have been running this planet for thousands of years.....and while I disagree, don't let fear rule your mind.

Your smarter than that and so are the rest of you.

Show change, that's a real leader.

Tally

Foxy, what's your problem with specifically the "eyes" not showing? Thanks.

The point being MAY MAY when an individual is clad in a Burqa it's difficult to establish the sex of that person, if even the eyes are masked by that black weaved, muslin material ?

As I said in my earlier thread, I've no problem with a women if she 'chooses' (of her own accord), to wear a Burqa. As long as she's prepared to remove the head component, to facilitate ID in the correct circumstances.

Dear May May,

It's not just the eyes.

To me covering someone's entire face is a
question of freedom and of a woman's dignity.
The burqa represents possessiveness and oppression.
It is not a religious issue. It is a sign of subjugation.
The submission of women - deprived of their identity.
And has no place in a democratic country like ours.
That's just the way I feel.

Dear Foxy,

With the greatest respect you have not responded to my contention.

Firstly let me quote you directly;

“When coming to this country you are
asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong
objections to those values, don't come to Australia.”

Does subscribing to your certain values involve women dressing more immodestly than they would otherwise be comfortable with?

The prime instigator of the so called 'Burka ban' is one odious individual called Cory Bernardi. Do you really think that once he had the Parliament House ban in place that he wouldn't have looked to have it extended to all Commonwealth buildings 'in the name of security'? So how long would it be before a woman needing to attend Centrelink would be required to remove her religious garb to access services.

So when you say;

“There is no law that expects you to bare your breasts 
in public in Tahiti, Hawaii or PNG, so your argument 
does not quite wash.”

I feel you are not considering the implications of the ban.

But the crux of this lies in the following question;

Why am I, a male, prepared to 'respect a woman's right to a higher personal standard' than you, a compassionate and commendable warrior for womens rights?

Please don't consider this as confrontational as I am seriously interested to hear your answer.

We know whose side Cory Bernardi is on and it isn't "Team Australia", the general feeling among White Nationalists is to wonder how far the Israel firsters will push this and how many of our people, not to mention Muslims are going to be hurt in the process.
It's debatable whether "social cohesion" is possible with Muslims or whether it's even desirable but nobody wants things to be worse than they already are.

Dear SteeleRedux,

I hear what you are saying and you have raised
some very valid points to which I'm not quite
sure how to reply without coming across as some
sort of bigot. All I can do is try to share my
feelings with you.

I don't have a problem
with what Muslim women choose to wear. I do have
a problem with the burqa - which is the most concealing
and covers the entire face and body. Covering one's
face does not sit well with me. I view that as a
total sign of subjugation, depriving women of
their identity. A sign of possesiveness and oppression.
And I can't understand the reasons for doing it -
when there are other choices that are not as harsh
and achieve the same results.

Cory Bernardi can go jump as far as I'm concerned and
of course I would question any permanent restrictions.
But I doubt whether it will ever come to that.
I believe that
here in Australia the burqa is not a common sight as
only a minority of Muslim women wear it and as such it
is new and unfamiliar to most of us (hence we tend to
pass judgement against the burqa probably without the
full knowledge of its significance).

Anyway, I'm not sure if I've answered your questions
this time around - but I hope that you understand
where my mind's at

'You people do realise that our Parliament has just decided to segregate people of a certain religion if they visit Parliament - even though they been cleared to enter by security.

Fine with that, are we?

actually Poirot I would feel more comfortable if the idiotic Greens were forced to wear burqa's everytime they make an idiotic statement.

Foxy, I agree with that. However I go further, if a woman chooses to wear any type of head covering, then that's her right in a free society. I say that woman should not suffer discrimination and segregation. Over the past 2 decades I've known a HUGE number of Muslims (mainly through my sister who was in a Christian religious order), and all the women I've closely known who wear head coverings "choose" to do that, it's not "forced" upon them by controlling, violent men (which is the stereotype that the bigots here like to peddle).

Islam is a bad religion, as is Christianity. All religions are bad. Why? Because they believe in gods that don't exist. But, they have every right in a free society to believe in whatever mythical gods they choose. And they have every right to dress in the manner they "choose". We have no right to insist they dress in the way "we" demand.

In Parliament House, the public should be required to undergo proper identity checks (I think that currently is the case). Women in full burqas present ZERO threat in Austraila, and ZERO threat in Parliament House and they should, like everyone else, undergo full and proper identity verification prior to entry. Muslims are Aussies, just like Christians and atheists are Aussies. Please don't fall for the right wing press propaganda. By the way, hardly any women in Australia wear the burqa anyway.

Foxy, your interpretation of what the burqa represents is not the interpretation of what the burqa represents to any Muslim -- except a crazy, fundamentalist Muslim. It's important to know the difference between the ordinary, everyday Aussie Muslim blokes and sheilas and the ignorant, crazy, violent, fundamentalist, murderous Muslims that the right wing press use to increase their sales and advertising.

Most comments on OLO in a while.
Suckers!
When will you people realise this is a premeditated, cynical and disgusting ploy to distract from the governments horror budget, its rorting, deceit and general uselessness.

Choice doesn't reside solely with the wearers of head-gear though.

I can think of a number of situations where removal of headgear that limits easy identification could be a reasonable condition for entry and while on the premises.

Unless someone is to be detailed to accompany the person after his/her ID has been established and for the full time s/he is on the premises, which cannot always be arranged.

Would a reasonable person object if it was a condition for access to school grounds, for example? The alternative is to wait at the gate.

Muslim women (or visiting nuns if some want it that way) cannot be too precious about that. I certainly don't object to always having a current Blue Card to help out occasionally even though my children attended the school and my family and I have been volunteering for years, and like other volunteers I always check in and out at the school office.

Frankly I see it as cooperation and a mark of respect where people visiting a school ensure they are always easily identifiable and restrict themselves to direct routes where they are in full view.

It isn't just about security, it is ordinary politeness and easing the task of responsible teachers too.

ConservativeHippie, the solution is simple. Ban the wearing of these when in any public place, the exception being their private residence, or their place of worship.

Or, better still, let's have a referendum and bring up several topics. Perhaps we could hold one every second federal election, and every first state election. Because after all, this is Australia we are talking about, and who better to decide what can and can't happen here than the people themselves.

On this subject I simply echo the sentiments of The Greens NSW spokesperson for Multiculturalism Dr Mehreen Faruqi MLC, Australia's only female Muslim MP.

Media Release
2.10.2014
Greens NSW MP and Multicultural Spokesperson, Dr Mehreen Faruqi MLC, has called the push by politicians to ban the burqa racist, oppressive and patronising to women. Dr Faruqi is the sole female Muslim MP in any Australian state or federal parliament.
Dr Faruqi said:
“We live in a society where people have the right to wear what they want. Muslim women have the right to freedom of choice, just like every other Australian.
“No one in Australia has the right to tell a woman how to dress, least of all the Government. It is a woman’s right to choose what she wears.
“In NSW, women who cover their faces can simply ask to be identified by a female officer in a private place showing that the national security argument doesn’t stack up.
“These proposals are about racist dog whistling and attempts to fracture our multicultural community. Sadly it has already greenlighted racist violence against Muslims across the country, including a Muslim woman being thrown from a train in Melbourne. As usual, it is women who bear the brunt of these racist attacks, brought on by a patronising attempt to ‘liberate’ them.
“This is a time for leaders to show wisdom, courage and leadership, not add fuel to the fire.
“Australians value our inclusive society. Regressive moves that tells women what they can and cannot wear undermines religious freedom, women’s rights and harmony in our liberal democratic society” she concluded.

- See more at: http://www.mehreenfaruqi.org.au/greens-mp-says-banning-the-burqa-racist-oppressive-and-patronising/#sthash.1Ljc1Now.dpuf

Rehctub - spot on... either a total ban or no ban.

May May - a few flawed points in your most recent post - (1) All religions are bad. Why? Because they believe in gods that don't exist.

Can you name the God Buddhists believe in?

(2) Women in full burqas present ZERO threat in Australia, ... hardly any women in Australia wear the burqa anyway.

Its not the women underneath the burqa the Government or anyone else fears, it's the potential of some crackpot with evil intent disguised under a burqa that is the threat. The burqa itself is what poses a potential problem requiring consideration.

(3) Foxy, your interpretation of what the burqa represents is not the interpretation of what the burqa represents to any Muslim -- except a crazy, fundamentalist Muslim.

How do you know for certain what the burqa represents to 'any Muslim'? You don't know what 'any Muslim' (or anyone else) is thinking.

Fact is - The burqa is a form of cultural suppression of women dating back to ancient times. The burqa is very common in traditionally fundamentalist Islamic countries. Its the extreme fundamentalist Muslims that pose a potential threat; the burqa is associated with Islamic fundamentalism - and thus appears threatening to the average none Muslim.

(4) Please don't fall for the right wing press propaganda.

Give us a break.

(5) It's important to know the difference between the ordinary, everyday Aussie Muslim blokes and sheilas and the ignorant, crazy, violent, fundamentalist, murderous Muslims (6) that the right wing press use to increase their sales and advertising.

Everyday 'ordinary' Aussie Muslims don't wear the burqa or hijab.

The right wing press hasn't invented the fact that almost 100% of the terrorist these days are Muslim. Terrorism isn't just a advertising gimmick designed to increase sales.

"Dr Faruqi said:
“We live in a society where people have the right to wear what they want. Muslim women have the right to freedom of choice, just like every other Australian.
“No one in Australia has the right to tell a woman how to dress, least of all the Government. It is a woman’s right to choose what she wears.
“In NSW, women who cover their faces can simply ask to be identified by a female officer in a private place showing that the national security argument doesn’t stack up."

First, we do not live in a society where people have the right to wear whatever they want, and second, the proposed ban is in a building in the ACT; the ACT is "in" NSW but is not a part of NSW, so NSW law does not apply.

No one should be allowed to appear in public with their face covered so that identity is impossible.
The burqa is a threat simply because it is a disguise and can used as a disguise by men or women to avoid recognition.

As the burqa is not religious dress, then why wear it?
It would seem (on the hidden face of it) to be prompted by a paranoid fear of men.

JOM: It's debatable whether "social cohesion" is possible with Muslims or whether it's even desirable but nobody wants things to be worse than they already are.

You are right, but that is not the fault of non moslems.

Foxy: without the full knowledge of its significance.

The only significance is that it is, in Australia, is a statement of defiance.

The meaning being, "if you condemn the Burka you are against Islam therefore we have the right to defend Islam by any means possible in Australia. Therefore acts of Terrorism are called for."

runner: Greens were forced to wear burqa's every time they make an idiotic statement.

They'd have to wear one all the time if that was the case. It would have no eye holes though, because they run around like headless chooks.

Is Mise: As the burqa is not religious dress, then why wear it?
It would seem (on the hidden face of it) to be prompted by a paranoid fear of men.

& their men's fear that other men will want to rape their wives because they are their property.

I wonder. Did these women where a Berka, etc when they arrived on their leaky boat? or is this a defiance statement, for Islam, now they are in Australia. Is it a statement by converts to Islam? Is it a defiance statement by most moslem men in making their wives wear the Burka?

Just to clarify:

* the ban, now lifted, was in relation to the Senate. Abbott is not in the Senate. There appears not to be any ban in the lower house, where he sits.

* if anybody in a balaklava, or full-face motor-cycle helmet, or surgical face-mask, wanted to sit in the public gallery of either House, I wouldn't be surprised if they were asked by security to bare their faces. But it appears they wouldn't be: is that so ?

* not being Catholic, I don't know of any orders which require nuns to wear full-dace covering.

Just trying to avoid the usual hysteria, and the stick-up-the-@rse politics of people who will seize on anything to try to embarrass the government, and to stick to the issues here.

Joe

Reading all the various comments is interesting.

And it seems this has become such an emotional issue.

However I still stand by my personal objection to
the burqa. In our society there are things that we
are not allowed to do. For example - we drive on the
left-side of the street not the right side. And even
though I might be from the US (as an example) where
they drive on the right-side - I won't be able to do that
here, even though I might feel more comfortabe doing it
being accustomed to my usual practices.

The same goes for female genital mutilation (FGM),
child-brides, polygamy, fire-works in suburbia, lighting
fires during fire-bans or funeral-pires in the backyard.
These are all illegal in this country and everyone is
expected to obey the laws despite what goes on in other
countries where this is common practice.

The wearing of burqas has been raised as a security-issue,
particularly in the light of terrorist threats to a number
of Western countries, including Australia. And it is on
record that burqas have been used as a disguise by terrorists
in the past.

I see nothing wrong with this issue being discussed in
Parliament. And if need be of a Referendum being held to
let the Australian voters decide on this matter. As I
stated previously, there are other choices that Muslim women
can wear - but total concealment is as I see it problematic
in a country such as ours - especially when our security
may be at risk.

The biggest danger to Australia's security is a bloke in 'Budgie Smugglers'! Ban the 'Budgie Smugglers'. Okay I've just started, no one is to appear in public in a disguise, get rid of 'Pepper Pig' people, get Santa Close, nothing to do with Christianity anyway! And of course my favorite, get Ronald McDonald! Nuns in habits, clowns in circuses. Okay, my new law has not gone far enough! ban people named Tony. I don't like Tony's or Fred's or Barney's. Ban people who eat chocolate on a Tuesday, it has nothing to do with religion, besides its bad for your health!
I found it interesting that the burqa wearing terrorists were going to be locked up in parliament, with that other group of terrors, school children, in the bomb proof glass room. my only request is could they throw Jacqui Lambie into the same room, I believe it is also sound proof, in that way the only one who would have to listen to her melodic nonsense would be the burqa wearers and noisy school children.
Is Mise, Dr Faruqi is a member of the NSW Parliament and is only saying what presently applies in that state.

I am wondering if there is such a thing as 'moderate' Islam. There was a thread recently, but here again there is an inexplicable failure of the claimed majority of 'moderate' Muslims in Australia to create clean air between themselves and their peaceful, wholesome Islam, and the Islam of fundamentalists who rigidly demand that girl children wear an uncomfortable symbol of their oppression. What about children's rights?

Then again, maybe the clamour is from the opportunists like the lunar Greens, crazy-enough-to-bite-themselves radical feminists and suchlike, who are riding the 'Protect-the-Burka' bandwagon with fundamentalist Islam.

As is typical of a grubby media that always puts sensationalism and winning an audience ahead of facts and serving the public (which they claim to do!), any beat-up is a good beat-up.

Last, when will the public clamour for logic and philosophy to be included in the secondary school curriculum? It is simple astonishing that a sizeable wad of the public, enough to affect win or lose in marginal seats, cannot immediately recognise the obvious, fatal flaws in the protest rhetoric of the headline hunting Greens and others who claim the Burka as the 'right' of women and deliberately conflate that with the usual, reasonable expectation that persons accessing the chambers of the Parliaments would be readily identifiable at all times.

However, as the Greens Protest Party and others will very soon learn, there is a very large majority of voters out there who will remember this and vote accordingly.

The government is looking weak and foolish through not being able to discern and put the facts to the public and generally lacking the courage of its convictions.

The government has again backed down to shore up the ethnic vote in a few marginal seats (as it did over the foul Section 18). It too must expect some loss of its presumed authority to lead. The credibility and authority of the Parliament itself has been eroded again.

Emily's listers/Greens/full head covers all totalatarian ideolgies.

I've managed to read Cory Bernardi's article in
the Sydney Morning Herald, as well as that of
Waleed Aly. And the best comments that made
the most sense to me that I found came
from a reader. I want to quote a part of what they
said:

"... if we as citizens are rightly expected to show
tolerance, where is the reciprocal tolerance on
display with those practicing such extreme
interpretations of Islam that they are offended by the
mere act of someone being able to look at their face,
surely the most natural way to engage with another
human being."

"How does discouraging people from engaging in such
communication make us a more tolerant society?
Why can't we expect some sort of give and take on both
sides, such as is provided by the wearing of a hijab?"

"People have the right to do a lot of things, but when
accepting that right means that the existing social compact
and societal norms are compromised then I think it is
legitimate to question whether we are getting the
balance right."

"I am not anti-Muslim, ignorant, untravelled, et cetera.
I just think we are being asked to consider this from
one perspective, the one where religious tolerance is king.
But there are plenty of examples where religious freedoms
are not acceptable and not practised in Western Societies.
For mine, both the niqab and the burqa run counter-productive
to a harmonious and inclusive society."

This debate has shown that the "real" motivation of the opponents of the burqa is not security, it's out and out bigotry against something they see as un-Australian. This is borne out by the phrasing and language used.

Earlier on I asked for anyone to supply instances of where any person in the entire history of Australia has been charged with any terrorist offence whilst wearing a burqa. Of course not one person here was able to answer in the affirmative. Why? Because the burqa is NOT any security threat whatsoever in Australia. So the bigots here lose that one.

I'll now ask another question: Can anyone here provide a link that proves that any person in Australia, throughout the history of Australia, has committed any violent crime whatsoever whilst trying to conceal their identity behind a burqa? The answer I bet will likely be in the negative, or at the most just a handful of examples in the entire history of Australia.

I can see what'll happen now: All the bigots here will immediately start typing their "search phrases" into google, looking for any tiny bit of evidence that links the burqa in Australia to even the tiniest, most insignificant crimes (in order to justify their ALREADY HELD without evidence bigoted opinions). Come on bigots, try your hardest to answer the question I asked.

Hi Pual,

Gosh, quite clever freally. Just a heads-up - the government hasn't banned the birka, or the nikab either. And nobody has demanded the right, as Prime Minister, to wear Speedos in Parliament. I think he'd be thrown out by his own party members (no pun intended).

But if you had paid any attention to the original rationale for confining people wearing balaklavas, or full-face motor-cycle helmets, or nikabs or burqas, or presumably dust-masks and health-masks and hoodies as well, to a sound-proof area, was that the chair of the Senate has to be able to see quickly somebody who is interjecting from the gallery, so that they can be identified and cautioned, without taking up too much time of the Senate.

Hence anybody wearing face-covering clothing or equipment to be asked to sit behind a sound-proof glass screen from which they can't interject while their face is covered.

Fair enough.

Joe

MAY MAY...

You challenge seeking evidence of anyone ever being charged with any offence while wearing a Burka is a little skewed I reckon. You will note that personally I've no problem with what's worn by either gender, but attire that completely prevents an adequate ID can and does represent a security risk ? The reasons are obvious.

While it's quite true, any individual who enters premises while attired in a Burqa would necessarily draw attention to themselves, purely because of the peculiar uniqueness of that attire. Nevertheless a specific ID would prove impossible in a court of law, and I'm sure you know that my friend !

The Beatles, I love 'em ! Ringo STARR aka Richard STARKY included ! To the point, me in company with my girlfriend, resolutely stood outside the Sheraton Hotel at the 'Cross', gazing up at the third floor balcony, vainly hoping to catch a glimpse of our beloved Beatles ! I could never understand why they never stayed at the Chevron Hotel directly opposite, a superior hotel in every way ?

Loudmouth, can you name even one person who has been ejected from the Parliament House viewing areas, for shouting abuse/interjecting whilst wearing a burqa --- at any time throughout the entire history of the Australian Parliament?

Burqa bandit in armed cash grab
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/burqa-bandit-in-armed-cash-grab-20100506-ub1r.html
Voluminous traditional clothing used to hide bomb vest, LTTE, Sri Lanka.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VnLpNrhVxQ
However..
The idea that a female terrorist would attempt an attack clad in a burqa goes against what we know about suicide attacks, the terrorist wants to remain invisible until the last minute so they usually alter their appearance to appear more "western", like the Madrid and London bombers.
So in Iraq where most women wear the chador or other loose fitting garments it'd make sense for a terrorist to dress that way in order to blend in, in Australia it'd make more sense to dress like any other woman in fashionable clothes.
This is a female Islamic Jihad terrorist who was involved in the notorious mother's day bombing in Israel, she's wearing a hijab in prison but the clip shows photos of her in dressed western fashion and wearing make up in the time she was on the operations, like a lot of criminals she's found god in jail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIFL-Kbpf10

O sung wu, identification CAN be readily obtained. Upon entering Parliament House, anyone wearing a burqa is required to undergo security checks, just like everyone else. Most modern Muslim women (I know this because I've had a lot of interaction with Muslim women in Aust.) are happy to temporarily remove whatever headgear they are wearing for a security check. A tiny minority of Muslim women would ask for a woman to do the check whilst the headgear is removed in private.

Therefore, there's absolutely no security grounds for banning Muslim women who choose to wear the burqa into the Parliament House question time viewing areas.

People on this thread are opposed to the burqa for CULTURAL reasons. It intimidates them, makes them paranoiac and fearful due to media brainwashing and their own lack of worldly education.

Hi May May,

No. What's your point ?

I support the right of Muslim women to wear what they like. I support the right of motor-cyclists to wear what they like. And people who don't want to catch stray germs. And even those people who wear those stupid hoodies. And balaklavas. But not in Parliament.

It's all a bit moot now, since the Senate ruling has been overturned. Abbott didn't support it, and neither did Labor. End of story.

Hopefully, end of thread :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

MM: can you name even one person who has been ejected from the Parliament House viewing areas, for shouting abuse/interjecting whilst wearing a burqa.

Same thing can be said of; being naked, wearing a yellow ribbon or a big blue condom. Hmmm. Come to think of it.

MM: People on this thread are opposed to the burqa for CULTURAL reasons. It intimidates them,

Sorry I don't find it intimidating. I find it; Abhorrent, Politically Incorrect & Unacceptable. Being the fine upstanding, Politically Correct, Greenie type person I am, it should be banned, like Xmas & Easter, Santa & the Easter Bunny, & Baa! Baa! Black Sheep.

Sorry!, I'll go get the cloth & clean up the mess.

Foxy,

"However I still stand by my personal objection to
the burqa. In our society there are things that we
are not allowed to do. For example - we drive on the
left-side of the street not the right side. And even
though I might be from the US (as an example) where
they drive on the right-side - I won't be able to do that
here, even though I might feel more comfortabe doing it
being accustomed to my usual practices.

The same goes for female genital mutilation (FGM),
child-brides, polygamy, fire-works in suburbia, lighting
fires during fire-bans or funeral-pires in the backyard.
These are all illegal in this country and everyone is
expected to obey the laws despite what goes on in other
countries where this is common practice."

What has any of that got to do with compelling niqab (or burqa) wearing women to sit behind glass screens in the gallery - after they've been cleared by security?

"The wearing of burqas has been raised as a security-issue,
particularly in the light of terrorist threats to a number
of Western countries, including Australia. And it is on
record that burqas have been used as a disguise by terrorists
in the past."

Frankly, that is nonsensical...(it has been pointed out ad nauseam) that any woman wearing a niqab (or burqa) wouldn't be in the gallery at all if she hadn't already been cleared by security to enter.

How can it possibly be a "security issue?

"...but total concealment is as I see it problematic
in a country such as ours - especially when our security
may be at risk."

Regarding the "burqa" - you've read Waleed's article:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/burqa-ban-a-political-excuse-for-persecution-20141002-10p0mc.html

"For starters, it's not a burqa. A burqa is that particularly Afghan garment, usually blue, with the mesh covering the eyes. The one you've seen on the news (or perhaps on Jacqui Lambie's Facebook page), but almost certainly never in Australia. We're talking about the niqab..."

You're aware of that.

The "burqa" emergency was confected in order to further propel the hysteria juggernaut....interesting to see that you've swallowed it whole.

May May,
"Cultural reasons" is a valid premise upon which to build an argument, the pro side are arguing from that standpoint and the veil/chador/burqa is worn purely for "cultural reasons".
It's logically inconsistent for you to accuse one group of people arguing cultural sensitivity of being bigots while legitimising the same argument from another.
When you use that type of specious reasoning you betray yourself, you may say you're Anti Racist, what you are is Anti White, Anti Racist is just a code word for Anti White.

Dear Poirot,

This is all a matter of perception.

I have read the Waleed Aly article, (as I did state
earlier) as well as the Cory Bernardi one, and the
balanced one by Dr Abdullah Saeed of Islamic Studies
at Melbourne University.

It was Dr Saeed who pointed out that those who wear the
face veil should have the right to wear it in public
and private. But they do not have the right to insist
they be allowed to wear it in ALL workplaces and ALL
environments. There are for example certain professions
that require the face to be shown. Professions such as
teaching, nursing, medicine, engineering and the like...
Similarly at airports, and sensitive places like certain
premises - banks, courts, Parliament Houses, where people
are required to show their ID.

If those who wear the face veil argue it is their right
to work in these professions and go into these places wearing
their face veil at the same time then the community certainly
has the right to say no to them.

Dr Saeed tells us that even Islamic legal norms dictate
that the community has the right to dictate certain things
unacceptable or acceptable as part of public interest.

It looks like we shall have to agree to disagree on this
issue.

Foxy,

"...There are for example certain professions
that require the face to be shown. Professions such as
teaching, nursing, medicine, engineering and the like...
Similarly at airports, and sensitive places like certain
premises - banks, courts, Parliament Houses, where people
are required to show their ID.

If those who wear the face veil argue it is their right
to work in these professions and go into these places wearing
their face veil at the same time then the community certainly
has the right to say no to them."

What has any of that got to do with Bishop and Co springing these interim rules regarding the Parliament gallery?

This "burqa" ban was instituted for "security" reasons - even though no-one with a burqa has ever entered the gallery to watch Parliament. All of a sudden Bronnie and Co decide it's such a "serious issue" that they have to institute a ban. Now she's saying it was in response to a "rumour about burka-clad protesters".

Feeble and stupid.

No-one has even tried to explain why someone should have to be segregated behind a glass barrier when security has found no reason for them not to be granted entry.

Peta Credlin was the one who "advised" Christensen to make a submission to Ms Bishop "on security grounds".

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peta-credlin-backs-burqa-ban-in-federal-parliament-20140930-10o5pn.html

Nicely facilitated by the PM's office as usual by Credlin.

Shame the stench was so bad, poor old Tones had to fall back on his default saviour position to squash it.

It was merely one more round (and a failed one) of this rancid govt ratcheting up Islamic hysteria as a diversion from their hopeless governance.

Poirot: No-one has even tried to explain why someone should have to be segregated behind a glass barrier when security has found no reason for them not to be granted entry.

Because they are stupid people driven by a stupid religion & stupid cultural practices. The people of Australia need to be protected from people who are that stupid.

May May,

"People on this thread are opposed to the burqa for CULTURAL reasons. It intimidates them, makes them paranoiac and fearful due to media brainwashing and their own lack of worldly education."

Is that one of your factual statements?
Care to back it up with a smidgin of evidence?

Great how much time has been spent on this bit of dog whistling. The number of women who were the burka is tiny in Australia and I dare say none have ever been or wanted to go and watch 'the children' in action in parliament house.

I work in the health profession. Women, no matter how heavily veiled have the slightest problem removing this in front of another woman.

Many of us women would be mightily uncomfortable being frisked by a male or taking our bikini top of on a public beach. Likewise, women who have grown up socialized that showing the face is immodest would find it confronting to show their face.

I'm from non Anglo background and, though I've lived here for most of my life, still cannot get over the hysteria that follows here when a female breast is exposed. It's really what you're used to and find acceptable in regards to modesty.

Peoples, the few women who feel the need to be heavily veiled are really and truly not an issue in any of our current debates, which are much more important.

MAY MAY...

If parliament house security can ascertain positive ID, then no problem. As I say (again) I personally have no issue with what anybody chooses to wear. As long as it's lawful, then who cares ?

Beach, another outlandish attack on The Greens, what is your parties policy on the burqa, does Jim have a burqa policy?
<<However, as the Greens Protest Party and others will very soon learn, there is a very large majority of voters out there who will remember this and vote accordingly>> but unfortunately for you, but lucky for us, as history shows, they wont vote for your man Jim and your Australia First Party. tut tut.

Foxy, "Dr Saeed tells us that even Islamic legal norms dictate
that the community has the right to dictate certain things
unacceptable or acceptable as part of public interest"

Yes, that is only adult, reasonable position available.

Yvonne,

If as you say the number affected would be very few, who then was doing the protesting? What stick did they hold over the PM to force him back down?

Or is it media-led hysteria, using the ratbag Greens and other serial protesters as convenient actors in the faux drama?

General Comment,

How can schools for example ensure the safety of the children under their care - for instance against being snatched by relatives whose beliefs have determined that a child's parents/carer is not bringing them up as required by their culture - where the schools cannot because of the political correctness of multiculturalism apply their rules evenly?

It is impossible to provide any assurance for the safety of children where facial recognition of persons on school grounds is being deliberately obscured. The positive stereotyping of women as unlikely offenders is wrong, and particularly so where where children are concerned.

Fortunately the Abrahamic superstition (Christianity/Islam/Judaism) will eventually be a thing of the past. Unfortunately that may take another thousand years or so.

This ancient superstition has a horrid history throughout the ages of people sacrificing themselves, and sacrificing others, in the name of their vengeful, mythical, man made god. The same history has also entailed them fighting and squabbling amongst themselves --- murder, terrorism, hatred and domination for the glory of their particular one true "version" of the ancient superstition they follow.

However, in a free society, people have the right to follow any ancient superstition they wish, minus the violence of course. Any they have the right to dress how they wish, without being prosecuted by the law for doing so. If the dress infringes security identification regulations, they have the obligation to remove any particular part of that clothing in order to aid with identification. I know many Muslim women, and I bet not ONE of them would refuse to temporarily remove headgear in order to aid identification at a security checkpoint.

But the bigots here just want to scaremonger amongst their own kind, because of their paranoia and fear of anything associated with Islam. Andrew Bolt and the Daily Telegraph would be proud of them

G'evening to you ONTHEBEACH...

Reading your last thread got me thinking somewhat ? You lament the wasted opportunity that parliament had within it's grasp to effect change, observing it's overt weakness to act ? Well what do you expect old mate ? This country is now regarded as wholly ineffectual.

We have a Senate that blocks just about every measure the government seeks to get through. Alternatively, so thoroughly waters it down, the original object of the Bill bears virtually no relationship to it's original intent ? The Greens, instead of remaining true to their original philosophy, now seeks to leave their diminutive footprint over everything ?

It's little wonder a relatively simple issue as 'the Burqa' becomes bigger than War & Peace ? Why for goodness sake ? Similarly with the s.18c capitulation ? If the Party believes in it, then do it ! It's no wonder a British friend of mine described Australia as completely ineffectual. Perhaps they are right ?

o sung wu,

"Reading your last thread got me thinking somewhat ? You lament the wasted opportunity that parliament had within it's grasp to effect change, observing it's overt weakness to act ? Well what do you expect old mate ? This country is now regarded as wholly ineffectual."

"...If the Party believes in it..."

Come off it.

It was not something "the party believes in"...it was Credlin, Bronnie and the lot of 'em being reactive and dumb...too bloody clever by half.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4100213.htm

"But sources have told PM that it was a bid to stop about 10 protesters disrupting Question Time."

The Abbott govt has chosen its societal scapegoat with much care - and now they're making stupid impulsive decisions based on "rumours" in an attempt to forestall any dissent that may erupt because of their hysterical agenda.

Ever wondered what it would be like to have a bunch of cowboys run your govt?

Well now you know

O sung wu said, "We have a Senate that blocks just about every measure the government seeks to get through".

Not so o sung wu. Nearly every measure the current government has placed before the senate (over 100 of them) has passed. Only a handful haven't. Exactly the same applied to the previous government as well.

Here's a list of the 109 Bills that have been passed in the Senate just over the past 8 months only http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/Senate_StatsNet/legislation/passed/billspassed2014

All the arguing, bickering, fighting and squabbling you read in the media is always over a mere 5 or 6 or so pieces of legislation. Anyone who does not have legislative knowledge of the Senate, and who follows the media only, would be of the "impression" that virtually nothing gets passed and nothing gets done. Not so.

MayMay, "I know many Muslim women, and I bet not ONE of them would refuse to temporarily remove headgear in order to aid identification at a security checkpoint"

Why should a school for example be burdened with the cost of security checkpoints on all gates, with a private booth and a women appropriately culturally sensitive one would imagine, to do the viewing? Logistically, how is she then to communicate the identity to school administration and teachers?

Even if they were funded to do that, which is unlikely, there remains the problem of monitoring people while on the school grounds. Full face is the minimum and not nearly enough to easily exclude (or include) where a child is missing.

Should be 'woman' not women. I am often doing a couple of things at once, sorry.

o sung wu,

You are needed on the poetry thread :)

MAY MAY...

You have my profound apologies ! That's the trouble when my old aural senses are listening intently to every word and sentence that originates from those three intellectual giants of Sydney's 'Talk Back Radio', Messrs A. JONES, R. HADLEY and the inimitable A. BOLT ! The general thrust of their conversations described in somewhat graphic detail how just about every Bill, is returned to the Reps, for considerable modification and alteration ?

Onthebeach, my comments were not in response to anything you wrote.

Regarding what you wrote, are you not aware that hardly any Muslim women in Australia wear the burqa? It's a "close" to unknown phenomenon? Trust me, burqa clad women are NOT invading Australian schools to commit evil crimes and steal children like you suggest, therefore your "security checkpoints on all school gates" is ludicrous in the extreme ---- straight out of the Andrew Bolt Bible.

The last 2 posts from onthebeach are a good example of how the right wing media in Australia has brainwashed a small minority of Aussies into anti Muslim paranoia. It's very sad indeed that this minority are so gullible that they willingly believe and worship their Holy Trinity, God the Farter Alan Jones, His illegitimate Son Andrew Bolt and the Ghostly Daily Telegraph.

Yvonne,

"....Likewise, women who have grown up socialized that showing the face is immodest would find it confronting to show their face."

This would, presumably, not apply to people born in Australia as for any others, one wonders why they came to Australia.
Women who go to Saudi Arabia wear a headscarf at all times when in public as that is the custom in that country.
Why would women who come to Australia not follow our custom of shewing our faces?

May May,

Schools have a duty of care to students, their parents and carers, and to the broader community.

It is not unusual for children to be taken, and be transported overseas too. Collection from a place of care and a known place the child will be, a school for instance, presents an opportunity for an offender and some lead time too.

Even if you believe that the apparel wearers you support are beyond suspicion, problems in identifying people in the vicinity of the probable abduction area can waste police resources and far more importantly, time.

Don't be ridiculous Onthebeach.
How many burka-clad paedophiles or kidnappers have run off with kids in Australia do you think?
Wouldn't the rare view of a burka-clad person at a school make them somewhat obvious?

The only reason we would ever need 'checkpoints' at our schools would be if we went the way of the gun-toting yanks and armed our school age kids just in case they might meet a sniper at the school....

Enter stage left, Suseonline the US-obsessed hoplophobe, going off half-cocked as usual.

Suseonline,
Yeah, everyone knows that "What Suseonline says, Goes!", but you could at least feign some courtesy towards other posters by flipping through their previous posts. Y'know, rather than always doing your drive-by thing.

Questions for May May -

What are your thoughts on the effects and issues that have arisen as a result of extensive Muslim immigration into the UK, France, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy and the other European countries?

Do you accept these countries now have some serious cultural problems that are seemingly irreversible?

Is the potential for a serious terrorist attack in these countries more likely or less likely?

Should Australia turn a blind eye to the problems that have manifested over time in these countries, rather than learn from the experience and proactively plan ahead (which may include limiting Muslim immigration)?

Is asking such questions Islamophobia and the proof of bigotry?

otb,

"Even if you believe that the apparel wearers you support are beyond suspicion, problems in identifying people in the vicinity of the probable abduction area can waste police resources and far more importantly, time."

Of course, you realise the ultimate irony in all of this, don't you?

The (all but non-existent in Australia) burqa wearers - and niqab wearers - those who are apparently such a "security threat" - were going to be plonked behind a glass barrier...wait for it...."with" the school kiddies!

It was just a beat up by the govt, burqa or niqab wearers in the gallery were always going to be non-existent or few and far between.

A couple of bigots in the govt went to Credlin who advised them to go to Bronnie with a "security threat" spiel - and Voila! - the next minute the govt is acting like Maxwell Smart.

(Don't mention the budget....)

The unpopular Abbott Government, by stoking what is really a non issue fire, again demonstrates its inability to govern for all Australians. Abbott when given the opportunity to show leadership, failed dismally. Instead of "calling" those in him own party that want to ferment division in the community, Abbott aided and abetted the likes of that well known red neck Cory Bernardi, on this. It would seem, to be part of Abbott's 'Team Australia', not only do you have to walk the walk, and talk the talk, you have to wear the Abbott uniform as well. If people want to get around with paper bags over their heads, well if that's their bag, so be it.

Yes, paul...

The "terror hysteria" juggernaut appeared to be rolling along according to plan.

I have no doubt that the burqa ban was something that they were "all in on". They assumed one more tweak of nations psyche regarding Muslims would just be meekly swallowed by the majority and all would be according to agenda.

Unfortunately, the "security" issue was the stumbling block - as there could be no valid reason to segregate people if they'd already been comprehensively screened - and cleared by Parliament House security.

The govt has been left with egg on its face with this one...and Credlin no doubt decided that it was time to abort the shambles when it became apparent that it was a "shambles".

(She's a bit dumb really..)

The problem Australia is having now is due to an introduced feral species called Islam.

Australia didn't have this problem when there were only a few scattered about here & there. Now, like cane toads, they are becoming a National problem & need eradication. I doubt if we will be able to rid Australia of all of them but, like the prickly Pear, something has to be done to get the problem down to a manageable level. Otherwise Australia is doomed if the infestation get out of hand. The introduction of Myxomatosis & Parvovirus has controlled the Rabbits.

We need the introduction of something along those lines in Legislation before it's too late. Australia need to stop acerbating the problem by importing any more of this introduced species, now. The cause of the problem.

LOl!...here's the type of dingbat the likes of Abbott and his cohorts appeal to...

"....The introduction of Myxomatosis & Parvovirus has controlled the Rabbits.

We need the introduction of something along those lines in Legislation before it's too late. Australia need to stop acerbating the problem by importing any more of this introduced species, now. The cause of the problem."

Shame you weren't around in Germany all those years ago...they had similar views on certain sections of their society.

You would have felt right at home.

(Sometimes Godwin's Law is valid)

I've never seen any woman in a burka, in the flesh, so to speak. Nikabs, yes, every day. Women should be allowed - well, they ARE allowed - to wear pretty much whatever they like. Fine with me.

On the other hand, I can understand the need to restrict anybody wearing any sort of covering over their faces - bikie, hoodie, face-mask-wearer, etc. - from parts of Parliament House. Fair enough.

IF it's true that dumb-@rse children WERE planning to disguise themselves as Muslima in nikabs, and then heckle politicians from the public gallery - and nothing too dumb surprises me about the soy-latte LygonSt set these days - IF this is true, then one can only despair at their idiocy and lack of thought of consequences for innocent Muslima in nikabs, offending no-one and just going about their business.

IF this scurrilous rumour is true, then imagine the outcry against the nikab across Australian society.

IF it is true, then these stupid, stupid people could do great damage to innocent people, innocent Australians who happen to be nikabi.

When I was out on the streets in the sixties and seventies, I wouldn't take part in any demo or march or whatever in which innocent people got into trouble or were hurt in any way. The rule seemed to be: never do any harm to innocent people, or put them out in any way.

Slightly off-topic: perhaps the same dumb-dumbs were involved in forging their addresses before the last elections, claiming to live in Indi when they didn't. Oy, how stupid can you get ? So after the election was called, and before voter registration closed three weeks or so later, these dumb-dumbs filled out registration forms, all neatly in a handful of files now, which the police can go through at their leisure, identifying frauds and preparing charges. One of them is supposed to have even been a lawyer.

When will children learn that you can't lie and cheat, and get other people into trouble, for what you think is a Good Cause.

God save us from fools.

Joe

Joe,

(Slightly off topic, but we're allowed to do that if you say so...:)

"Slightly off-topic: perhaps the same dumb-dumbs were involved in forging their addresses before the last elections, claiming to live in Indi when they didn't. Oy, how stupid can you get ?"

Is that the same Indi where this happened?

http://theconversation.com/lost-and-found-the-case-of-the-missing-votes-in-indi-18140

"In any case, McGowan’s bid for election was boosted last night when the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) found a box of first preference votes that was mistakenly labelled. Instead of marking the box as containing 2,115 votes for McGowan, the AEC had marked it as containing 1,115 votes."

Lucky, eh!

poirot: Shame you weren't around in Germany all those years ago... they had similar views on certain sections of their society.

The difference being the Jews were actually a benefit in their Society.

There is a big difference between the introduction of a beneficial species & destructive ones, like Cane Toads, Prickly Pear, Rabbits, cats & the religion islam. More Jew's, Hindu's & Buddhist's would be beneficial in Australia.

Just think. Would we be having all this trouble in Australia now if there were no moslems? I don't think so.

The difference broadly seems to come down
to one of "freedom to" versus "freedom from."

Some people are defending a woman's right to dress as
she chooses, especially when it comes to expressing
her religious belief. Others are arguing for the
freedom from coercion by those who would impose a
symbol of second-class status. These are the people
who do not believe in accommodating fundamentalists who would
impose a sumbol of subservience on women.

As one reader asked in another article on the web -
"Are the niqab and the burqa counter-productive to a
harmonious and inclusive society?" " If we as citizens are
rightly expected to show tolerance, where is the
reciprocal tolerance on display with those practicing
such extreme interpretations of Islam that they are
offended by the mere act of someone being able to
look at their face, surely the most natural way to engage
with another human being?"

"How does discouraging people from engaging in such communication
make us a more tolerant society? Why can't we expect some
sort of give and take on both sides, such as is provided by the
wearing of a hijab?"

"People have the right to do a lot of things, but when accepting
that right means that the existing social compact and
societal norms are compromised then I think it is legitimate
to question whether we are getting the balance right."

There are plenty of examples where religious freedoms are not
acceptable and not practised in Western Societies. Why would
someone come to this country and then try to recreate the
living enivronment they have just left

It is ludicrous that as well as the obligatory prayer rooms that private and public employers are supposed to provide, there will also have to be private discrete rooms at all entrances to confidential or other security areas with a women staff member always available, in order to ensure that there is no 'discrimination' against any Muslim veil wearer who might want to enter.

Yet Me Me (Moi Moi) and Poirot swear that very few Muslims would require the services. In that case precisely who is responsible for all of the ruckus? Why, what secondary agenda are they about?

Save the money and give preference in immigration to the migrants from the millions available who don't have to import offensive rituals and politics. Why follow the multicult PC path down trails that culminated in the Rotherham scandal, or civil unrest?

The construction industry could do with those trained block layers from Italy we once used to get, builders from Northern Europe who can build the dry basements our own builders have for decades found impossible (they all leak!) and some decent roofing tradies and sparkies while they are at it.

If political parties must buy the votes of migrants, at least source desirable skills and cultural traditions from the millions of available migrants. It is a buyers' market, so what is going wrong in immigration policy and in that federal department that is supposed to be putting Australia's needs uppermost?

OTB, I don't tend tend to read more than one of your posts at any one time, because I can only handle the annoyance in small doses...

I agree with you in principle Foxy, as I too feel uncomfortable with the extreme burqa or nikab dress.
However, I strongly support their right to wear them if they choose, given that there are no laws against them thus far.

If there are any 'security' concerns in places where faces must not be obscured, then they must be prepared to unveil of course, here in Australia. I assume that if they chose to emigrate here, then they would be willing to do this.

Abbott, and his other old male conservative Christian friends, only thinly disguises his Islamaphobia, which is not admirable in a PM running a secular country like Australia.
He continues to embarrass me as an Australian.

People like JayB, who seem to live on fear and bigotry, must have great joy in having Abbott at the helm.

Jay B,
What trouble are we in? In the 1920's Jewish led bolsheviks were running amok in Germany killing people left right and centre, not to mention what they were up to in the Soviet republics, anything Australia's Muslims have done pales into insignificance compared to the crimes committed by Bolshevik Jews in Europe in the 20th century.
You're even worse than the so called "bleeding hearts".

Suseonline,

You never bother to read prior posts because you are always falling over your own feet to deliver a sarcastic remark to make your own day.

How in hell your obsessions - the US, guns as current examples - always get a mention some way, some how, God only knows. Whoops, a despicable 'white' man and God, so GO for it Suseonline, you know you want to let loose on those and get a top-up adrenaline shot for the day. LOL

A good walk in the park will deliver you the same 'shot' and it is good for you, with no nasty side effects.

JOM: compared to the crimes committed by Bolshevik Jews in Europe.

Yes, yes, JOM we all know you have Jewephobia. That's Racist, you know.

Have I got Islamaphobia. maybe I have but with good cause. We only have too look what's happening in Europe, the UK, in fact anywhere where there are moslems. These countries never had this problem until Islam arrived on the scene. Australia never had this problem until the Islam religion arrived in numbers. Once these problems were restricted to the Middle East now they have been exported all over the World. Good people are dying because of a religious disease no better than Ebola.

Wakey! Wakey!

Jayb,

"...Would we be having all this trouble in Australia now if there were no moslems? I don't think so."

Erm...what trouble?

"... Australia never had this problem until the Islam religion arrived in numbers...."

Erm...what problem?

poirot: Erm...what problem?

There's none so blind as them that cannot see.

I guess what you see is the real problem is, non-moslems.

I guess their wouldn't be a Terrorism threat in Australia, as there is at the moment, if we all converted to Islam. Or would there be an even greater problem. Just like in the Middle East at the moment.

We wouldn't be having a debate about Burka, etc. moslems running Druggie Criminal Motorcycle Gangs, running vehicle rebirthing gangs, running Terrorist Training Facilities. Killing Australians, the policeman. Rapeing women because they are dressed like rotten meat. Having to close down Public Swimming Pools for a couple of days for moslem women. Having to put a solid fence around a Public Swimming Pool because it offends moslems when they see all that "rotten meat", then take the town, in Victoria, to the UN Court because it refused. & on & on & on. Not to mention Xmas, Easter, Santa Clause & the Easter Bunny.

Then there is the other problem. The Politically Correct, Greenie, F'wits that support them. I guess, well, you know.

Get rid of moslems from Australia, get rid of the problems.

JayB, it isn't the collective 'Muslims' who we need to get rid of, but only those of any race, colour or creed who are violent terrorists, who seek to divide Australians into an 'us and them' situation.

We don't want to start civil wars amongst Australians here at home, but it is the words and actions of people like you who seem to want this.
Is that what you want?

"There's none so blind as them that cannot see."

When I read the Wounded Goose's post, Jayb, that's exactly what sprung to mind ! But you beat me to it :)

People in Australia are quite rightly allowed to practice any religious belief they like, provided they operate within the Australian legal framework, the rule of law, equality of the sexes, etc., BUT we have to openly admit that, perhaps under the influence of ISIL, al-Qai'da, Jemaa Islamiah, etc., and a lazy portmanteau-of-evil anti-Americanism, many people in Australia have been influenced to plan on blowing up military bases, planning to behead random people on the street, planning to poison water supplies, attacking police with knives, sending funds to terrorists, and inciting gullible fools to go and fight for fascists. Hardly the plans of progressive forces.

Meanwhile the genuinely progressive forces gathered together by the US, against the fascists and their gullible lick-spittles, are holding the line in extremely complex situations. Long may they persevere, and ultimately prevail.

Cheers,

Joe

SOL: Is that what you want?

Of course not, what a stupid question.

SOL: We don't want to start civil wars amongst Australians here at home, but it is the words and actions of people like you who seem to want this.

You are right. We don't want to start a Civil War.

So what you are saying is that you'd give in to the Islamists straight away & that we should do the same. Good one.

But just who would be the Them & Us, if there was one. The moslem on one side, they'd support their Religion to the hilt, & their hanger-on-ers (see the Politically Correct, Feral Greenies, etc.) No, they wouldn't, they'd be running for the hills, wanting ordinary Australians to defend them from getting their throats cut. (Black hats.)

Ordinary Australians trying to preserve our Australian Culture from an archaic introduced destructive one on the other side. (White hats.)

Hi Poirot

Earlier I posted some questions to May May which I'm sure he will answer in due course. Over the past couple of months on different occasions I have raised similar questions to you but so far I haven't seen a reply. I cannot glean from your posts where you stand on the big picture, other than blaming Tony Abbott for everything you don't like. Would you be willing to share your opinion on the following:

What are your thoughts on the effects and issues that have arisen as a result of extensive Muslim immigration into the UK, France, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy and the other European countries?

Do you accept these countries now have some serious cultural and social problems that are seemingly irreversible?

Is the potential for a serious terrorist attack in these countries more likely or less likely?

Should Australia turn a blind eye to the problems that have manifested over time in these countries, rather than learn from the experience and proactively plan ahead (which may include limiting Muslim immigration)?

Is asking such questions Islamophobia and proof of bigotry?

Suseonline & Paul 1405, you are more than welcome to comment also.

JayB, sorry, but I just don't see your point.
As long as law-breakers are punished for what they do here in Australia, I am happy.

Conservative hippie:<
"What are your thoughts on the effects and issues that have arisen as a result of extensive Muslim immigration into the UK, France, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy and the other European countries?"

I think they can handle whatever problems they have themselves. I don't consider Australia part of Europe at all.

"Do you accept these countries now have some serious cultural and social problems that are seemingly irreversible?"

I'm sure all countries have problems with refugees and immigrants. Aboriginals here in Australia will surely agree with that.

"Is the potential for a serious terrorist attack in these countries more likely or less likely?"
I wouldn't know. I believe all countries are on the alert for terrorist attacks surely?

"Should Australia turn a blind eye to the problems that have manifested over time in these countries, rather than learn from the experience and proactively plan ahead (which may include limiting Muslim immigration)? "

I think we have already learnt from other countries problems, which is why we haven't really had any terrorist attacks on home soil like some other countries have had.....unless you call Martin Bryant a terrorist? Criminal bikie gangs? Drug dealers?

"Is asking such questions Islamophobia and proof of bigotry?"
Not at all. But I fear your answers to my comments might be.

Suseonline & Paul 1405, you are more than welcome to comment also."
Oh gee thanks....this is an opinion forum after all!

Hippie you asked me 5 questions on page 19, here's my answers, by the way I'm a she not a he.

1-- Muslims have brought great economic and social benefit to all those countries. The VAST majority of Muslims there, just like the VAST majority of non Muslims there, are well accepted, law abiding, well functioning contributors to many facets of society there.

2-- No.

3-- More likely, but remember this applies to EVERY country in the world. Why? Because the tiny minority of terrorist Muslims represent a threat to EVERY country in the world. Just like the terrorist fundamentalist Christians of 600 years ago were a serious threat across the world.

4-- Australia should turn a blind eye to nothing in existence, both good and bad, in EVERY country.

5-- Yes and no. It depends on the "language" and "slant" used in the questions.

600 years ago much of the world was ruled or dominated by fundamentalist Christianity. Christianity brutalised people with unspeakable terrorism and domination. Eventually secular decency, secular democracy and secular freedom began to defeat this old style, brutal Christianity. The process took 300 years or more.

Everyday Islam in most countries, has also accepted secular decency. The problem is SPECIFICALLY the Middle East regions (and people influenced by that), which are very much like those old European regions when brutal, old style Christianity dominated there hundreds of years ago. The type of Islam practiced there, combined with the cultures of the regions there, produces brutal and inhumane power plays that rely on what Christianity used to rely on, brutal rules, utter intolerance, terrorism, killings etc. It took Christianity over 300 years to reform. We can't expect Islam in the Middle East to totally reform overnight. It will take at least another 100 years. There are many, many, many decent Muslims in the systems in the Middle East working for change. They are brave heroes, courageous and decent. There's also many non Muslims there doing the same thing from within.

Secular decency, secular democracy and secular freedom defeated terrorist Christianity, and it will eventually defeat terrorist Islam.

Dear May May,

Well your words have certainly struck a chord with me.

My position on this discussion is grounded in the
vision of a fiercely secular country that respects the
freedom of religion but does not believe in accommodating
fundamentalists and extremists who would impose certain
symbols that run counter to a harmonious and inclusive
society which is what the burqa and the niqab do.
They separate and distance the wearer from the normal
interactions with broader society.

Thank you May May, sorry about the gender blunder.

Thank you Suseonline - I didn't mean to offend you by inviting your comment, given my post was directed to Poirot. You are totally correct, this in an on line forum and you are fully entitled to comment on any post.

Paul 1405, if I haven't already offended you, please disregard my feeble attempt at being inclusive. If I did offend you, my apologises.

So Suse, in regard to the problems in Europe directly attributed to overcrowded Muslim ghettos and disaffected Muslim youth gravitating toward extreme Islamic fundamentalism, you don't see anything to be learned because Australia is not part of Europe... what?

For the record I agree with May May that the vast majority of Muslims are just regular people who do not pose any threat to the Western world or our lives here in Australia. But if the conservative figure of '2% of Muslims are extremist' is correct, we have approximately 28,000,000 potential terrorists globally; Numan Haider being one example here in Australia.

MM: A1 Muslims have brought great economic and social benefit to all those countries. The VAST majority of Muslims there, just like the VAST majority of non Muslims there, are well accepted, law abiding, well functioning contributors to many facets of society there.

No they haven't, they live in Ghettos of their own making where ordinary citizens are not allowed to enter or they get bashed up. Most are on unemployment & benefits. They are not well accepted, hence the turnaround in most European Countries to Very Right Wing Partys. They don't mix at all with the local people of the Countries they have emigrated to at all.

A2 No.

Do you live under a rock. The answer is a resounding, Yes! of course these Countries have irreversible problems. Unless they remove the source of the problem.

MM: A3 More likely, but remember this applies to EVERY country in the world. Why? Because the tiny minority of terrorist Muslims represent a threat to EVERY country in the world. Just like the terrorist fundamentalist Christians of 600 years ago were a serious threat across the world.

It applies to every country in the World that moslems have pushed their way into. The problem with the Fundamentalist Christians was 600 years ago. Yes, & it lasted 300 years. Yes. It goes to show how far the rest of the World has progressed. Islam started it's problem on the death of Mohammad & it hasn't stopped yet, or is ever likely to. The West just wants them to restrict their problem to the Middle East not bring their proiblem to the West, as they are doing.

MM: A4 Australia should turn a blind eye to nothing in existence, both good and bad, in EVERY country.

Australia should nip the problem in the bud. Unfortunately the problems have started. The Burka, etc issue is just one issue. It just doesn't jell with Australian sense of fairness or right. Yess there is Good & Bad in every Country but why import problems we didn't need to have.

MM: A5 Yes and no. It depends on the "language" and "slant" used in the questions.

To some people, anytime you question something they are for then you are considered to have a Phobia or are Racist. It's their way of stopping you discussing anything.

MM: Everyday Islam in most countries, has also accepted secular decency.

No they haven't, not in any country in the world & they haven't here either. Take ifitika & Choudry's rants about the changing the UK for two examples. The more we buck about them wanting to change us the more Fundamentalist Islamic they get.

Conservative hippie, I never said there wasn't anything to learn from Europe did I?
Europe is completely different to Australia in many ways. I think we can handle our own problems our own way.

I think we have dealt with immigration and multiculturalism much better than many other countries.
I would hate to see the current hysteria about what Muslim women wear have a negative effect on our usually harmonious country, but something tells me that other people do want problems for their own reasons....

Regarding the "stunt" pulled by this govt re burqas/niqabs:

http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/burqa_ban_and_backflip_have_cost_34nBHl8IV9WCK2xnPPQgeM

"Some months ago, the bureaucrats who administer and operate Federal Parliament decided to stop the daily security screening of the several thousands of people who have permanent passes for the building.

Apart from press gallery journalists, almost every other person who worked in the parliament no longer had to scan their bags or person upon entry.

Every day for months, hundreds and, if Parliament was sitting, thousands of people entered the building, sending the metal detectors into a frenzy as folk strolled through with briefcases, suitcases, backpacks, gym bags and all else. It was designed to save money in response to federal budget cuts to the public service."

"Throughout this whole episode, the only MP who voiced concern was the ever-vigilant NSW Liberal senator Bill Heffernan, who brought an imitation pipe-bomb into the building to expose the folly.

There was, however, a deafening silence throughout this entire period from Cory Bernardi, George Christensen and Jacqui Lambie, all of whom have reignited a crusade against the “burqa”, by which is presumably meant the niqab, in the wake of the Islamic State terror threat both at home and abroad. That they never raised a peep when thousands of unscreened people poured in to the building daily only furthers the suspicion that security is not their concern as they seek to conflate the “burqa” with terrorism as part of what Malcolm Turnbull called “a coded attack, coded attack on Muslims”. Put aside the fact that no one can remember someone wearing a “burqa” inside Parliament."

Of course, the mere fact that this thread has taken off means the "stunt" worked.

How can it be that in the space of some months, the govt goes cutting parliamentary security to running around with sparklers making interim rules to segregate people who rarely if ever enter the building.

They were after headlines to fuel their "terror hysteria" - and they achieve these headlines every second day by means of carefully scripted "stunts".

What I find disturbing is that the self serving greens and far left whingers are putting political point scoring above the safety of those in parliament by trying to pretend that there is no security concern when someone has a completely covered face.

There are plenty of document uses of the naquib / burqa to steal or avoid punishment. The recommendation by the independent advisor of the need for increased security at high value targets such as parliament house should flag to most people that security should be tightened.

Perhaps to be culturally sensitive, one should simply ban everyone from the public gallery?

May May,
You're just as deluded as Jayb, Christianity was spread by unarmed missionaries who mostly operated alone, these so called armies who you say went about terrorising people were tiny. Some examples; Cortes had 500 men, De Soto 600, James Cook had 90 men under his command and all of the real wars fought in the new world were between Europeans.
Oh yeah, what about India? You'll notice that it's still Hindu dominated with significant Muslim and Sikh minorities despite being one of the major battlefields of colonialism.
Even the most notorious atrocities committed by "Christians" ie White people pale into insignificance when set alongside Islamic history. Something like 150 people died at Wounded Knee in 1890,30 at Myall Creek, whereas Timur the great Islamic general slaughtered 20,000 when he took Baghdad, 100,000 when he took Delhi and virtually wiped out the populations of Georgia and Armenia, his army is thought to have wiped out 5% of the world's population in the space of 30 years and he wasn't the only Jihadi at large at the time
As for your "Secularism" it's death toll rivals that of Islam, 120 million in 100 years and still counting.

The problem is that whereas Christianity is based on the gentle teachings of Christ, Islam is based on the revelations of Allah to Muhammad and the teachings of Muhammad, the which shew a violent tendency that we can well do without.

I asked this before; why do some think that Muhammad was illiterate?

Jay of Melbourne, I just LOVE your "excuses" for Christianity violence. The first thing defensive Christians do when defending their horridly violent history, is to immediately point out the violent history of atheists, or Muslims, or even "secularism". These Defenders of the Faith try to pretend that the crimes of others mitigate the historic crimes of Christianity. Nice try Jay, but your arguments are a massive FAIL, for obvious reasons.

Jayb, your last 2 posts on the previous page proves you have a LOT in common with fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. Like you, they too follow their Lord and Saviour blindly and without question. Yes Jayb, it's true. Yes, you obey and worship your Holy Trinity -- God the Farter Alan Jones, His only begotten illegitimate Son Andrew Bolt, and the Ghostly Daily Telegraph. Yes Jayb, you've been brainwashed into meek submission by your Holy Trinity.

ConservativeHippie, if your figure of 28 million Muslim terrorists worldwide was true, we'd be having multiple bombings and suicide attacks in every Western country every minute of every day. Nice try Hippie. Maybe next time you should try dealing with facts, instead of stereotyping entire masses of people, in order to make your argument seem relevant.

Abbott, has totally shot himself in the foot over this one. Its proving to be a disaster for the government from all sides. After initially stoking the fire with his "Burqa's are confronting" statement and taking that general line. Abbott is now backtracking to the point of trying to untangle the whole sorry mess. The message from the bridge had been one of full steams ahead, but now the message to Brommie down below from Captain Abbott is reverse all engines, hard to starboard, no port! stop all engines, no wait! Gee, Brommie its all your fault, you didn't tell me!
On Friday Abbott claimed he was oblivious to a decision by Bishop and Senate president Stephen Parry to isolate women wearing a burqa or niqab from public galleries until early Thursday evening, hours after an angry backlash from the public and his own MP's.
Abbott later contacted Bishop to ask for the decision to be reversed, setting the scene for a test of wills between Mr Abbott's leadership on one side, and Ms Bishop's independence as Speaker. Naturally Bishop as House Speaker can tell Tone to go take a running leap as she is in charge, and she calls the shots.
Some in the government are now seriously questioning Abbott's leadership, and is he the right man for the job? I think not. Malcolm where are you!
I must say it has certainly been "good" entertainment on the forum with some of the 'Usual Suspects' going on a feeding frenzy, with Jayb, wanting to do both Santa Clause and The Easter Bunny in for their crimes against humanity and good old Jay of Berlin, chiming in with his usual, its all the faulty of those Jewish Bolsheviks from Toorak.
Fortuity once more the regular voices of reason have shone through with Poirot, Suseonline, May May, Foxie and one or two others contributing excellently to the debate, with great material on the broader complexities involved. I can't add anything to improve on their perceptiveness on the issues presented here. Well done gang.

Hi Is Mise,

Yeah, that was me. My limited understanding of the supposedly miraculous was that Muhammad, as an illiterate, went into a cave to meditate, as was common amongst desert people, but came out with (I presume) scrolls purporting to be the literal word of Allah.

Hence, miracle. Illiterate man, scrolls, therefore word of god.

Of course, I don't know how a businessman and trader could operate, even then, if he were illiterate, or innumerate. I should imagine that every desert trader would have been pretty cluey about arithmetic, conversion of weights and measures, market prices, exploitation of different markets, etc. And still would be.

Joe

I managed to get a clip of Tone and Bronnie addressing the parliament on this very issue on Friday;

So here it is;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA

See, there you go May May... I say 28 Million potential terrorists worldwide and you come back quoting me as saying there are 28 million terrorist. Not all extremists will become terrorists, in fact only a small percentage, but 28 million is a large pool to draw from. If you don't believe the 2% figure do some research before coming back ill prepared.

There is a distinct pattern in your shoot from lip grandstanding that is dishonest. It was your aggressive manner that lead me to believe you were a man, but was unfortunate sexist stereotyping on my behalf. Maybe you should start dealing with the facts instead of denying there is a real problem facing the future of the world with it's roots are in Islam. The truth sometimes hurts, but its still the truth.

May May,

"ConservativeHippie, if your figure of 28 million Muslim terrorists worldwide was true, we'd be having multiple bombings and suicide attacks in every Western country every minute of every day. Nice try Hippie. Maybe next time you should try dealing with facts, instead of stereotyping entire masses of people, in order to make your argument seem relevant."

Precisely

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/islamic-state-a-better-name-might-be-unislamic-state-20140930-10o0ok.html

Richard Glover hits the nail on the head.

"Cory Bernardi and Jacqui Lambie have announced their own jihad against Islamic dress, as if bombers in burqas were our most pressing issue. Others turn to social media. "All this violence is right there in the Koran," rant a thousand voices on Facebook, before going on to quote certain lines, as if the Christian Bible doesn't offer the odd smoting."

(ooh, just like Loudmouth and others here delight in doing!)

"This of course is the exact project of the terrorists. That's why they call it Islamic State, when a better name maybe unIslamic State. It's why they use terms such as "jihadists" for their recruits, when "disaffected loser" would be more accurate. It's why they talk about people becoming "holy warriors", when "brainwashed dupes" would be more precise."

"Amid all this, there's a hunger for hope. Last week, a 10-year-old called Mohammed called my radio show and spoke about the lack of racism in his Sydney school. Everyone gets on, he said, we all play together and really the adults could take a leaf out of our book. Whacked up on social media, his advice has since been shared more than 50,000 times. From the names I see on Twitter and Facebook, the sharing has been done by Sydneysiders from both Muslim and non-Muslim backgrounds."

"When next someone conflates Islam with terrorist violence, understand that they are doing the work of Islamic State; when next someone directs hostility towards a woman in traditional dress, understand that this is a gift to those who would divide us."

You grown-ups here having the vapours should take a leaf out of the book of the 10 year-old.

Wounded Goose,

"I've never seen any woman in a burka, in the flesh, so to speak. Nikabs, yes, every day. Women should be allowed - well, they ARE allowed - to wear pretty much whatever they like. Fine with me.

"On the other hand, I can understand the need to restrict anybody wearing any sort of covering over their faces - bikie, hoodie, face-mask-wearer, etc. - from parts of Parliament House. Fair enough."

Like I said.

And yes, the Bible does go on a bit about smiting and butchering and slaying, etc., especially in the Old Testament. Life in all traditional societies, as they were back in the OT days, are usually brutal, murderous and exterminatory. Thank goodness those OT days have been over for three thousand years now.

Except in IS-controlled area in 2014. Oh, well, hopefully it won't take them three thousand years to catch up with the rest of the world. But as long as they have apologists such as yourself, and other extreme-Right-wingers, with respect, they can be shielded somewhat from criticism.

Keep your head on your shoulders, Poirot. But don't go to the Middle East :)

Joe

CH: if the conservative figure of '2% of Muslims are extremist' is correct,

There are approximately 800000 moslems in Australia that makes 16000 potential Terrorists. If they decide to go on a rampage &, say they murder a conservative five Australians each. That's 80000 Dead Australians at the hands of moslems terrorists.

Could Australians handle that? Just think of the unnecessary grief that would cause to Australian families, for what? All because the Politically Correct, Cry baby Greenie movement feels sorry for these people. I wonder would they then be having the same feelings towards the people they "saved?" I wonder if the people they "saved" would protect them? Nah!

Now if Australian takes umbrage with the potential terrorists then that will encourage the number to increase 5 fold. That would then make 80000 potential moslem terrorists. Say the Australian Security Forces & Police "capture" all the 16000. That's 16000 court cases, tying up the Courts for years. Lots of moola for the Lawyers, so they wouldn't mind the work. I suppose.

But then comes another problem, where to house them. In Prison for 20 years, at what cost? Argentina solved the excess prisoner problem easily, I believe. I... wouldn't suggest we do the same, but bringing back the death penalty for crimes of terrorism would help.

SM: There are plenty of document uses of the naquib/burqa to steal.

That reminded me. When I went to London, we went to Safeways in Hyde Park a number of times. The moslem heart of London. Every time we went there, there were moslem women with their Burkas, etc on, standing by their trolleys. The Trolley have the wheels locked. The Trolley wheels get locked when they are detected hiding things inside their clothing. (Shoplifting.) I was talking to the Dragon Lady (Front End Supervisor.) That's what they are called. My wife was one. Anyway, she said they catch at least 4 or 5 every day. Their husbands wait outside in "the Rolls," they wouldn't be seen dead shopping with their wife. Yes, they do use their clothing for steeling.

Jayb,

"Just think of the unnecessary grief that would cause to Australian families, for what? All because the Politically Correct, Cry baby Greenie movement feels sorry for these people. I wonder would they then be having the same feelings towards the people they "saved?" I wonder if the people they "saved" would protect them? Nah!"

People, yes. But if we were talking about the Hairy-@rsed Wombat, or the Big-Balled Grass parrot, you have to admit their compassion would be heartening to witness.

The conundrum seems to be: how on Earth did the Greens degenerate into right-wing apologists for terrorists ? How did things get to this point ? Appalling., but you can't expect children to operate easily in, or to understand, an adult world.

Joe

The last post from Jayb is simply pure, childish idiocy. Not one word of factual reality anywhere in his post. Just childish bigoted opinion, opinion and more opinion.

Jayb's Lord and Saviour, the Holy Trinity (God the Farter Alan Jones, His only begotten illegitimate Son Andrew Bolt, and the Ghostly Daily Telegraph), would be proud of Jayb. Yes Jayb has avoided the Lake Of Fire.

Sample of childish idiocy.

"Jayb's Lord and Saviour, the Holy Trinity (God the Farter Alan Jones, His only begotten illegitimate Son Andrew Bolt, and the Ghostly Daily Telegraph), would be proud of Jayb. Yes Jayb has avoided the Lake Of Fire."

Readers, don't worry about Is Mise, she/he is just bitter because Poirot, myself, Paul, Suseonline, Yvonne and a few others have put her in her place.

The radical, anti Muslim bigots are a mere minority in Australia.

Sample of clever, amusing, yet true words:

""Jayb's Lord and Saviour, the Holy Trinity (God the Farter Alan Jones, His only begotten illegitimate Son Andrew Bolt, and the Ghostly Daily Telegraph), would be proud of Jayb. Yes Jayb has avoided the Lake Of Fire.""

May May, I like your work :)

Cheers,
Suse.

Lol!..May May has their measure!

Loudmouth,

"The conundrum seems to be: how on Earth did the Greens degenerate into right-wing apologists for terrorists ? How did things get to this point ? Appalling..."

While you're slapping good ol' Jayb on the back and buying him a drink - he just advocated this for Muslims in Australia:

""....The introduction of Myxomatosis & Parvovirus has controlled the Rabbits.

We need the introduction of something along those lines in Legislation before it's too late. Australia need to stop acerbating the problem by importing any more of this introduced species, now. The cause of the problem."

Here's a bit more:

"Australia didn't have this problem when there were only a few scattered about here & there. Now, like cane toads, they are becoming a National problem & need eradication...."

Like that sort of rhetoric do you?

Tell me how that mindset is so radically different from the evil mindset of IS?

You prance around here whooping up the humanitarian angle of the govts intervention in Iraq...and you fail to utter a single word against the above diatribe by Jayb.

That's because your so-called "humanitarian" angle is merely so much seasoning to flavour your own attacks on anyone who criticises the govt's domestic "hysteria" agenda..."

You say...

"... but you can't expect children to operate easily in, or to understand, an adult world."

Your latest whizz-bang device is to deride your opponents by referring to them as "school children", I see.

Yes, yes, very impressive - and I realise when your argument is weak, it's handy to have devices like that to fall back on...sort of like a crutch to a lame argument.

Cheers

May May,
I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist.
You don't know much history do you?
There's no such thing as a Christian army,that's a contradiction in terms because the religion is spread by unarmed missionaries, you're just using the word "Christian" in place of the word European, it's exactly what ISIS does and the same tactic used by Hitler's and Stalin's socialists.
You use the word "Christian" because clearly you don't like Europeans or the people descended from European colonists, it's just race baiting but it's also a straw man argument.
There's no opposition to Islamic immigration or even radical Islamism from Christians, they're 100% for "Team Australia", the churches are even selling them land and buildings for use as Mosques.
I can say that most Muslims are decent people but the majority of Christians are outright traitors who are either radical leftists like the Uniting Church and the Jesuits or demented Zionists like Danny Nalliah and Fred Nile.
Islam is a lot easier for a real atheist to live with because it's not really a religion and it's adherents mostly don't bother anyone, secularism and Christianity are cults whose adherents (like you) throw their weight around all the time, every day they're pillorying someone for saying the wrong thing or not behaving the way they think people should.

Wounded Goose,

I think you may have misunderstood: I was simply picking up on something JayB wrote and extending it, to suggest that many people who claim to be on the Left and yet, by default, provide support and comfort to the extreme-Right ISIS - that, for all their talk, they are not particularly concerned about the butchery of human beings, far away.

My reference to them as 'children' was an attempt at euphemism, that their implicit support for ISIS was naïve rather than duplicitous.

After all, the situation across the Middle East is fiendishly complicated, with each party having its own grievances and agenda: if Obama can gradually resolve that tangle, then he deserves another Nobel Peace Prize.

I hope that clarifies the point.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

Yes, I appreciate that you were picking up on Jayb's comment...still doesn't explain why you meekly accept his "let's eradicate Muslims" mindset - no views on that?

My reference to "school children" was not merely addressing that comment. You have lately spent many posts addressing others as if they were still in high school...remember all those?

Scintillating.

And as for who does and does not show that they are particularly concerned "about the butchery of human beings, far away."

well, judging from the govt's reaction and from some of those around here, such concern is rather selective.

I don't recall the govt gave diddly squat for the slaughter of 2,000 unarmed civilians in Gaza recently - around 500 of which were kids and babies blown to smithereens by Israel's advanced weaponry...or the fact that these unarmed civilian murderously pursued had nowhere to run, no borders to flee across (as they were blocked) and when they did seek shelter in UN designated compounds, they were bombed by the aggressor with gay abandon as well.

Didn't hear a peep from you criticising that particular round of butchery happening far away....

......

Btw....Bronnie that stalwart of democracy (and who believes it's represented by booting out 200 Labor members to around 3 LNP members), may have dudded her chances for presidency of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/burqa-announcement-damages-bronwyn-bishops-chances-for-global-gig-20141004-10qblh.html

"The Speaker is campaigning for the presidency of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, an international organisation that promotes democracy. She is running against candidates from Muslim nations Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Maldives. Ms Bishop is reportedly the frontrunner.

The IPU places an emphasis on the empowerment of women, especially when it comes to politics and government. At October's assembly, a debate has been scheduled on "achieving gender equality [and] ending violence against women".

Hi Wounded Goose,

Nice deviation :)

From memory, I did in fact, many times, deplore the killing of innocent civilians in Gaza. My suggestion was that, if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel with the intent of terrorising the population (that didn't seem to work so well) then Israel would cease military operations against Hamas.

Lo and behold ! that seemed to work. No rockets, no retaliation: truce.

Two thousand people means a lot of death and suffering. ISIS seemed to have caused that in a single atrocity, when they shot around two thousand prisoners and dumped their bodies in trenches, in one day. ISIS, by all accounts (except those on the pseudo-Left and the extreme Right: interesting bedfellows; which one are you?) has killed tens of thousands in their current offensive against the people of Syria and Iraq (and Kurdistan and Lebanon).

I don't know how many children they have beheaded or women they have raped and then either murdered or enslaved, but it probably out-does whatever the Israelis have done in Gaza, many, many times over. Isn't that so ?

And that has ceased for the time being. Why was that ? Because Hamas ceased firing rockets into Israel, with the intent of doing terrible damage. Once they ceased trying to terrorise Israelis with random rockets, military operations ceased. Isn't that so ?

I hope this clarifies the differences between the conflicts.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

You could attempt to make yourself cognizant of all the machinations Israel has instituted to stall and upset agreements with the Palestinians in Gaza.

But you won't of course.

It doesn't suit your narrative.

Note that shortly after the cessation of bombing and indiscriminate slaughter that Israel grabbed some more land for settlements.

"Binyamin Netanyahu orders the biggest land-grab in a generation"

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21615644-binyamin-netanyahu-orders-biggest-land-grab-generation-another-thousand

"SOME people are never grateful. On August 31st Israel’s government made its largest appropriation of occupied West Bank land in a generation. It took some 1,000 acres of virgin hills for a proposed new city, Givaot, doubling the population of the Gush Etzion block of settlements sprawling on the hills around Bethlehem."

"Nevertheless, hopes of reviving peace talks are evaporating, just as they did when Mr Netanyahu’s last land appropriation in March made peace talks go “poof”, in the words of John Kerry, the American secretary of state. Mr Netanyahu may have negotiated the Gaza ceasefire with a Palestinian delegation that included the Islamist Hamas movement, which rules Gaza. But he says he will not talk peace with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, as long as his government is backed by Hamas. His defence minister, Moshe Yaalon, says the arms build-up in Gaza shows that Israel cannot cede the West Bank."

"Encircled by Mr Netanyahu’s latest appropriation, Palestinian residents of the bucolic village of Wadi Fukin have already lost all but 450 of the 3,000 acres they once had, and stand to lose more. The hillsides where the village’s 600 sheep and goats graze are set to go. Unable to farm, many men find work as builders, often on Jewish settlements nearby. They may yet be called upon to build homes for Israelis on land they regard as their own."

"Nice deviation :)"

Oh, I forgot, unless Loudy decrees it - and titles it "slightly off topic"...then it's a deviation/diversion....etc

Hi Wounded Goose,

Still, it's a deviation from the topic, which is, I thought, about the right to wear the nikab in public, but the restrictions on ALL face coverings in Parliament. My understanding is that Abbott supports the first but not the second. But he has no power over the President of the Senate, so his opinion in support of the nikab carries no more weight there than yours or mine.

But while we're off-topic, perhaps you may allow me to register my opposition to Netanyahu's land-grab: I don't think it is right, or helpful, or sensible in the current political situation in the Middle East.

I would support the withdrawal of ALL Jewish settlements on the West Bank, in order to facilitate a two-state solution.

But of course, it takes two to initiate a two-state solution: if Hamas or al Fatah launched any more attacks on Israel from Gaza or the West Bank, then in international law, Israel would be within its rights to retaliate. I hope that process can be avoided.

Now back to topic: I hope that no non-Muslim group of idiots ever tries some stupid stunt like disguising themselves in nikabs, getting into the public galleries of parliament, and heckling the MPs: this would do terrible damage to the reputations of innocent Muslima who wear the nikab and inhibit their right to wear whatever they like in public.

But although there's no accounting for stupidity, I hope nobody tries it.

Perhaps I've been mistaken ? This topic, like so many others, is actually about you ?

Cheers,

Joe

Loud Goose,

"Still, it's a deviation from the topic, which is, I thought, about the right to wear the nikab in public..."

You're such a hypocrite...what's this?

"Slightly off-topic: perhaps the same dumb-dumbs were involved in forging their addresses before the last elections, claiming to live in Indi when they didn't. Oy, how stupid can you get ? So after the election was called, and before voter registration closed three weeks or so later, these dumb-dumbs filled out registration forms, all neatly in a handful of files now, which the police can go through at their leisure, identifying frauds and preparing charges. One of them is supposed to have even been a lawyer."

.......

".....My understanding is that Abbott supports the first but not the second. But he has no power over the President of the Senate, so his opinion in support of the nikab carries no more weight there than yours or mine."

If you believe that the burqa ban wasn't cooked up at the top, then you "are" a goose.

Credlin calls the shots, as you know.

Credlin encouraged Christensen to make a submission to Bronnie on security grounds.

Credlin made a boo boo.

"I would support the withdrawal of ALL Jewish settlements on the West Bank, in order to facilitate a two-state solution."

Nice to hear...but Israel has its agenda - as is evidenced by Gaza, where a people are ostensibly penned into a ghetto and periodically slaughtered with advanced weaponry - while the West Bank is slowly gobbled up by Israel... don't hold yer breath.

"....I hope that no non-Muslim group of idiots ever tries some stupid stunt like disguising themselves in nikabs, getting into the public galleries of parliament, and heckling the MPs: this would do terrible damage to the reputations of innocent Muslima who wear the nikab and inhibit their right to wear whatever they like in public."

All you have as evidence for that "claim" is the govt scuttling to make excuses for its bad call. Seen any concrete evidence of such a plan - other than the "rumour" trumpeted by the govt

MM: Not one word of factual reality anywhere in his post. Just childish bigoted opinion,

My first paragraph is my opinion of a senario based on Conservativehippy's 2%. Nothing wrong with that, but very scary. Australia never had this potential problem before the moslems arrived in numbers. That is the gist of my post.

My second Paragraph on what I saw in London is definitely true. We stayed, for two weeks, at the Park West Apartments off Edgeware Road. Safeway is further down Edgeware Road towards Edgeware Station. It definitely an Arab Centre in London. We saw some amazing sights just in Edgeware Road. Outside Safeways there was always a lineup if Rolls Royces, Mercedes & BMW's & Arab men dripping with Gold chains & those dresses they wear. Inside the Arab women, usually in Black withall sorts of face coverings. Some of them straight out of a Masochistic Porno, others like Batmans companion Robin, Some with just their eyes showing. Didn't see any of the Burka type. Some of the women that you could see their face under a shear veil & some had a leather grills, one had a steel mask on. We saw that one at the Airport. Most were dripping with Gold chains & little charms from their ear to their nose, & around their eyes, & gold bangles on their arms & ankles.

To see these women being stopped by Store Security for shoplifting was very strange.

Lol!
I would just like to welcome Wounded Goose and Loud Goose to the forum this morning, and thank them for amusing me on this fine Sunday :)

Cheers,
Suse.

No Probs, Suse :)

So: everybody does have the right to wear whatever they like in public (apart from nudity that is), and that certainly includes nikabs, turbans and, in the right context, Speedos.

And in some contexts, face-coverings - full-face bikie helmets, balaklavas, hoodies, face-masks - are not encouraged in banks, houses of parliament, police stations, etc.

The question seems to be: should nikabs be allowed in parliamentary galleries ? Abbott says yes, but the President of the Senate, presumably on a vote of the Senate, says no.

Many of us would welcome your views on this subject, Suse :)

Joe

You can wear whatever you like as long as it doesn't offend the serially sensitive. For definition of that refer to the ever-growing Manual for Political Correctness, Australian edition.

See this report by the ever PC-approved, 'fact-checking', national broadcaster,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-01-26/rudds-nephew-in-kkk-anti-racism-stunt/309320

Students dressing up in Nazi costumes for Halloween is not funny either. Reprehensible conduct and due a great deal of public 'outing' (is that the PC correct use of that term?) and endless humiliation for it, of course.

So there you have it, a word and apparel too for that matter, in fact everything - even a thought - can mean what the P.C. Manual intends it to mean and nothing more. 'They' have spoken!

Suseonline will be along for her drive by when she is locked and loaded (and not with some old patient's cough mixture one hopes).

Foxy,

My issue with the Burqa debate - is that people select on values. They want to be able to do, and wear what they want, but will gladly tell other people what they can and cannot do.

We are talking about a piece of clothing - and in terms of public affairs - unless say a court says so (which it did in one case, that a Burqa needed to be taken off for identification), I did not agree.

Why? Currently I am vegetarian. I don't agree with the majority of people who eat meat. If however I was to tell the majority of people (having parliamentary numbers) in Australia to stop eating meat - we'd have the biggest protests in Australian history. It's simple respect.

In fact one woman I spoke to on this agreed with me after I raised this connection - and using how women are treated overseas does not justify "less worse" treatment in Australia.

If you have strong objections to the certain values (you refer to), don't come to Australia. What do I do, get cut up and be sent back to my various families homelands?

All areas are a terrorist risk - the Burqa is a side show in the whole debate - and a very easy one. After all it stands out.

Hi there JAYAB...

I couldn't agree with you more ! One need only look to what is happening in the UK now, as a true measure and a realistic indication of what will happen here in Oz. If we continue to permit people of Islamic persuasion to enter and settle into our country. We will pay an awful price, in the end if we permit it to continue !

For the umpteenth time...ISLAM in all it's various forms is absolutely, and totally incompatible with our Australian culture in every possible way. I'm NOT inferring that Islam is either fundamentally evil or inherently bad, rather that it's completely incompatible with us, and our own peculiar way of life. I'm sorry it's this way, but it is unfortunately, and nothing that may be said or done, will ever change that fact. This is not a racist statement, it's my opinion only !

MayMay,

"The radical, anti Muslim bigots are a mere minority in Australia."

Thankfully the radical, anti-Christian bigots are a mere minority in Australia; feeling lonely?

Perhaps some clarification may be needed here: what some people might find 'confronting', or even offensive, may still be legal.

I find people vomiting in a gutter somewhat confronting, but it's still legal. People wearing Speedos in the street can be confronting but it's still legal; as a perv, I don't mind people wearing bikinis in the street, it adds to the variety of life.

As a hetero, I'm revolted by the sight of two men kissing, but it's still legal and I would support their right to do it. Perhaps somewhere else. We don't have to like what's legal, on the one hand, but what we might find confronting or revolting, may be quite legal.

But I'm blowed how anybody could find the nikab all that confronting: one can still see the smile in someone's eyes, and if they don't want people to see their face, then that's up to them. Muslima are often so beautiful that it's no wonder they don't want strange men ogling them, as I would if they weren't wearing one. Me 0, them 1. Fair enough.

Until the nikab is misused by someone, an idiot in Parliament or a terrorist, either one of which would be causing great distress to women properly and innocently wearing one, I don't really feel we need to worry. We can stay insouciant and calm.

Joe

Dear Nathan,

This is Australia. It is not the Middle East.
And covering the entire face and body
separates and distances the wearer from the
normal interactions with broader society.

Those who wear the face veil should have the
right to wear it in private and public. However
they do not have the right to insist they
be allowed to wear it in all workplaces and
environments. As stated earlier even Islamic
legal norms dictate that the community has the
right to dictate certain things unacceptable or
acceptable as part of public interest. The community
has a right to say no to them. Covering the entire
face and body is not a religious issue. It is to most
of us a sign of subjugation. The submission of women
deprived of their identity. It is confronting, possessive
and oppressive. At least to me.

'Muslima are often so beautiful ' bit of a generalisation their Loudmouth. I have known a couple of white woman who could not get husbands and then fell prey to predators. You would not of called them 'beautiful'.

Tell me runner, were the "predators" that your "white" women fell "prey" to Muslim men, and were these "predators" "not" white?

Loudmouth, I already said what I feel about Burkas earlier in this thread.
They should be allowed to wear what they like in both private and public areas,
but I don't like seeing women dressed from head to toe in a black sack.
It is a reminder of a very possessive, restrictive past (and some present) in the history of the Middle Eastern countries.

Runner, you are a disgusting individual suggesting women couldn't 'find a husband' because they were ugly. What do mean by 'fell prey to predators"?
People who are ugly on the inside are the most awful people on this earth...

What sort of sub human would suggest legislation be brought in that would allow some kind of deadly diseases like myxomatosis be developed so it could be unleashed on one section of society. Jayb wouldn't gas chambers be all you would require? So a "Muslimpox" is more your style. Only kill Muslims including babies and children.

<<The problem Australia is having now is due to an introduced feral species called Islam.

Australia didn't have this problem when there were only a few scattered about here & there. Now, like cane toads, they are becoming a National problem & need eradication. I doubt if we will be able to rid Australia of all of them but, like the prickly Pear, something has to be done to get the problem down to a manageable level. Otherwise Australia is doomed if the infestation get out of hand. The introduction of Myxomatosis & Parvovirus has controlled the Rabbits.

We need the introduction of something along those lines in Legislation before it's too late. Australia need to stop acerbating the problem by importing any more of this introduced species, now. The cause of the problem.>>
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 4 October 2014 8:57:26 AM

Jayb, Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels and your supporters on this forum would by proud of you boy! You are a total disgrace.

Paul, people like Jayb, Is Mise, runner and a few others are merely trying to stir people up with their ignorance and language used. It's probably best to reply to them in a sarcastic or humourous way, rather than take them seriously.

May May, that's true, but I read the following posts by the 'Usual Suspects' and although they were given amply opportunity to condemn that disgusting post by JayB. Given their silence I can only assume that like JayB they to would support legislation which would ultimately lead to the extermination of Muslim people in Australia through an introduced 'Muslimpox' disease. Similar to the actions taken which lead to the eradication of rabbits. How about it fellas, how many of you agree with JayB? Are you all united behind Jayb on this, silence says you are!

Paul,

Somewhat hysterical and idiotic, but I suppose you are asking for some sort of rebuttal of a particular position. I'm sure that most of us on this thread, I for one, haven't responded about fanciful expressions of extermination simply because they are too ridiculous.

Muslims have as much right to be here as any other Australians. They are entitled to wear what they like, like other Australians. I agree with Suse that restrictive clothing specifically for women may well be an expression of a male-centred, repressive culture, and I would certainly support wholeheartedly any Muslima who wanted to wear 'standard' Australian dress.

But I certainly don't think that women wearing the nikab should be further repressed by any restrictions on their wearing it in public. Some wear it with pride and assertiveness and that is their right too.

It's not just either-or, is it ? Multiculturalism can get complicated :)

Joe

Loudmouth, since you didn't actually say JayB's "Muslimpox" was a good thing. I'll put you down as being opposed.

JayB; one of your leading supporters has now broken ranks and condemned your "Muslimpox", but I'm sure there still is plenty of the 'Usuasl Suspect' who actually support you. Come in Runner, what's your opinion on the 'Muslimpox'? Yes or no!

Foxy,

"This is Australia. It is not the Middle East." Really? I would also say, don't judge a book by its cover.

Some look at people by their skin colour, voice, or racial background and other types of things they may wear or are different about them (like a disability) and make so many judgements or have assumptions that are just not true about that person.

One time I had a personal doctor, who I read in my local newspaper had committed suicide. It was a shock to think he would do that. I just didn't think doctors, who are so pro-life would do that. I was wrong and he wasn't wearing a burqa.

By the way, people can be deprived of their identity without wearing a burqa. Unfortunately, people who wear clothes like this get easily targeted (harassed or patronised as unintelligent) as a result and others get left out (in terms of help) as a result.

And don't forget, people can leave this country if they don't like what it is supposedly about. We are however a DEMOCRACY. That includes the right of a woman to wear a burqa - and you don't like one - don't wear one.

Paul,

Don't get too far up yourself - most people on OLO think for themselves, and exhibit a vast range of idiosyncratic perspectives. I've never thought of any grouping of OLO contributors so much as individuals each pushing her or his own barrow, utilising the freedom to explore their own notions about any topic.

To be honest, I get mixed up between JayB and Jay of Melbourne, and perhaps you do too. Given the uniqueness of the experiences and standpoints of each of us, it seems that the wonderful thing about OLO is that none of us agree fully with any other, and that's fine, that's freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Wonderful.

Mind you, as an old leftie, it's also been an indication for me of the ridiculousness and impossibility of ever expecting everybody to agree with One True Path, One True Belief, One True Ideology, One Good Society. Good people disagree, that's how they are. I suspect in the One Good Society, they would be shot. So a pox on it.

Joe

Good post Nathan. I like Foxy's posts quite a lot, she has some interesting insight, however I'm very disappointed with her stance on certain types of Muslim headgear.

Foxy, I believe when people come together because of shared culture, fully accepted by all sides, then that is a good thing. However, that will NEVER, EVER lead to understanding/tolerance/acceptance of difference. There will always be difference in the world, and unless we learn to tolerate difference, peace and understanding will never fully happen. Some people don't want that or couldn't care less about that.

Take your stance on the burqa for instance. Your interpretation of why it exists is most definitely not the interpretation that many Muslim women have. Now, I believe what I say next is vitally important -- the goal towards peace and understanding and humane behaviour is NOT to convince the other side that they are wrong in their interpretation (this applies to both sides), but to simply put a view forward in the hope they will understand one's perspective. And if they still disagree with that perspective, then the road to peace and understanding is to allow them "their" perspective, even though it's not your perspective (this applies to both sides).

People dream of humanity being as one, and believe this is the way to peace. Not so, because of the incredibly huge diversity amongst humanity. Finding ways to live in peace, fully incorporating this diversity, even though you may not agree with the conclusions, interpretations and perspectives of others, is the ONLY way that humanity can ever live in reasonable peace and cooperation.

Tolerance of difference is the key. I'm a hard line gnostic atheist and I'm VERY critical of religions and god beliefs, but these Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Wiccans, Muslims, Hindus etc have every right to believe and live as they choose (non violently of course), and they have every right to equally criticize me for my atheism. I think that type of thing is the core to tolerance and peace. It's all about the tolerance of difference, because humanity will never be as "one".

Paul,

I think Jayb's post should be taken with a large pinch of salt!

I agree with May May in that although I will never agree with the stance some Muslims take on covering their women with full length clothing, I will always defend their right to wear it if they so choose.

The few women in Australia who may be forced by their families to wear the Burka would be even more disadvantaged if they were not allowed to wear the garment in public. They would no doubt be confined to their homes.

I would hate to see any woman wearing a burka being a target of hatred out in the community, but I am sure some nasty bigots out there would use this current unrest re these garments to have a go at these women.
These people are cowards...

Suseonline, my late sister was a Catholic nun recently deceased, and through her work I befriended at least 50 or so Muslim families in Australia over the past 2 decades. I still regularly see, visit and socialise with 5 of these families. In all that time the vast majority of the females in these families, I would say at least 90%, wear no headgear whatsoever, at any stage. The remaining females wear scarves or various forms of the hijab on occasion, and a remaining miniscule proportion wear headgear all the time when in public. The reality of Islam in Australia as practiced by everyday Aussies, is not the false reality presented by some of the media in order to promote paranoia and thus get more audience, sales and money.

The fact is that the vast majority of Muslim families that are born in Australia, or have been established in Australia for a long time, are no different to similar Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, Protestant families. In other words, "real" Aussies.

May, May isn't that strange. I too have a number of Muslim friends and neighbors, and yes very few wear the Burqu, in fact none. As many come from South East Asia, Indonesia and Malaysia where head dress for women is different from the Middle East etc. The woman look very nice in their colorful attire.
Yes, Joe I too wonder if Jay of Melbourne and the Jay of Berlin (JayB) are not the one and the same.
As for the proposed JayB 'Muslimpox' at the moment there doesn't seem to be a hell of a lot of support. I'm not sure who on the forum first coined the description the 'Usual Suspects', it might have been me. A loose coalition of like mindless people. You are not seen as one of those 'Usual Suspect' more an independent sitting on the cross benches. The group have their hard liners Jayb being one, with the message being kill, kill, kill. Naturally they have a proliferation of the raving loony types, including the bible bashing brigade, come in Runner!

Paul,

My point was that you might be hard put to find two OLO contributors who agree with each other on everything. Maybe you and James O'Neill and Daffy Duck and the Wounded Goose, but everybody else seems to think for themselves.

May May & Suse,

Yes, I agree with you on this one, that Muslima should be allowed to wear whatever they like in public, in the context of BOTH a culture of submission of women to men AND choice and pride in what they wear. I don't agree with the ban on headgear in France and Belgium, that seemed like sheer spitefulness, and probably a stupid condemning of many Muslima to the home, unable to get out and experience the chaos and buzz of modern society first-hand.

Cheers,

Joe

Loud Goose,

"My point was that you might be hard put to find two OLO contributors who agree with each other on everything. Maybe you and James O'Neill and Daffy Duck and the Wounded Goose, but everybody else seems to think for themselves."

Hahaha!...that's a joke.

The govt and the media join forces to create a domestic "terror emergency" (where none exists)....and lo and behold the reactionaries on OLO come flooding out of their dens with their ACME pitchforks and boiling hot tar.

All ya have to do is stage a "terror raid" with 800 personnel, have it widely publised - arrest some people and have the agencies provide material to the media.

Next - when most of the people are released without charge and one of the two remaining is discharged the following day with a good behaviour bond for an un-terror related charge - you get the media to ignore all that.

The job is done as it's the initial hysteria surrounding the raid that adheres to their psyche.

And, Voila!...all de peeps will be "thinking for themselves".

Mise: I think Jayb's post should be taken with a large pinch of salt!

Someone's thinking. Awww.... No fair. Nothing wrong with a good stir it brings out the worst in narrow minded people, then I get a good laugh. Remember, as my T-shirt says, "You may find it offensive. I find it funny, that's why I'm happier than you."

Yes you are right Mise. I do like to play with people's minds.

Jayb,

"Yes you are right Mise. I do like to play with people's minds."

In that case, it's a shame you have no real wit.

Obviously your post was only so much blather - we understood that. Nevertheless, those sentiments, although over the top, represent your mindset.

You meander around this forum dripping your "rooly clever" bigotry whenever the opportunity arises...and now you appear to be congratulating yourself for your vacuous, fearful, repetitive and narrow-minded garbage.

Well, I suppose someone has to congratulate you...it may as well be yourself.

Wounded Goose,

Flap ! Flap !

Good one. Your posts on this thread have exhibited a genius for diverting discussion down blind alleys. Brilliant ! Some of your posts do degenerate into nothing but insult, with respect, but I suppose when you have nothing to say, say something.

Oh well, back to topic :)

So it seems that sensible people on this thread (i.e. those who more or less agree with me) would support Muslima wearing the nikab, even though it may have, for some, strong intimations of women's oppression and submission.

And that if women wanted to wear the nikab, or even the burka, it's legal to do so in Parliament ? Have I got that right ?

Joe

There are a number of nincompoops on OLO that are so easy to stir up it's a wonder they are able to function in the real world.

With the number of Potential Terrorists wanting to leave Australia to join ISIS is frightening. Why aren't we letting them go instead of keeping them herein our community. The time, money & resources required to monitor these people is horrendous. Australia must let them leave to join ISIS, but they must never be allowed to return.

Australia never had this problem until the influx of moslems. I see the wearing of the Burka is a defiance statement by moslem women. with or without the insistence of their husbands, in support of Radical Islam. Yes, very few moslem women wear the Burka, etc. Are the ones who do, the ones whose husbands are Radicals?

I personally, do find the Burka, etc confronting. Not the Chador, it's fine. You can see the "person" whereas with the full face covered the person becomes a "thing" to Australians. We know there is a "person" under there, but Who, Where & What? A Darlek? Now there's a nasty piece of work with the same outlook as Radical Islam.

Yeah, Loud Goose (otherwise known as the fella who posts off topic whenever it suits him - and calls for BTT whenever he's overwhelmed by opposing argument)....here's Jabber's latest:

"There are a number of nincompoops on OLO that are so easy to stir up it's a wonder they are able to function in the real world."

"I see the wearing of the Burka is a defiance statement by moslem women. with or without the insistence of their husbands, in support of Radical Islam. Yes, very few moslem women wear the Burka, etc. Are the ones who do, the ones whose husbands are Radicals?

I personally, do find the Burka, etc confronting. Not the Chador, it's fine. You can see the "person" whereas with the full face covered the person becomes a "thing" to Australians. We know there is a "person" under there, but Who, Where & What? A Darlek? Now there's a nasty piece of work with the same outlook as Radical Islam."

Lol!..the "burqa"...worn in Afghanistan...and rarely if ever seen in Australia...but let's all get in a tizz over it...because that's what we do when we find a cause to hang our bigotry on.

Thanks for the insightful commentary, Jayb

Cheers

JayB: Page 20, 2nd. Post: Australia didn't have this problem when there were only a few scattered about here & there.

Let me ask these questions;

Did Australia have these problems before the influx of moslems?

Has the influx of moslems added to the coheasivness of Australian life?

Do moslems integrate freely into the Australian way of life?

Does the wearing of the Burka, etc, help or hinder the assimilation of moslems into Australian Culture?

Is it Australians making it hard for moslems to integrate into Australian Culture?

Then, just who is to blame for the problems we are having with moslems in Australia? Australians or moslems.

May may, I too know many Muslim families. Not many personally, but many that I have visited through my community work.

Yes, most are very much like every other families that I visit, however, there have been a few where I have been upset with how they treat their women.

Several women were not 'allowed' to go and see a doctor, because they had 'intimate' health problems that men were not to see or discuss. When I started mentioning the names of female doctors, I was yelled at for 'causing trouble'.
These women were only allowed out if they went out with a male relative.
Two of them never saw a doctor for palliative care.

Yes, there are men like this in other cultures too, but none as paranoid as these guys re letting 'their' women out of their sight.
Thus, I am wary of the men I visit if the women are covered from head to foot.
Yes, I know it is probably rare in this country for the Muslim families to be like the few I met, but I am thinking that the ones who are like this don't have non-Muslim friends.

I would hope that when people emigrate to Australia, they will integrate well enough as to see the benefits of more equality for the treatment of women.

Hi Wounded Goose,

So, like Tony Abbott, you find the nikab confronting ? But it's still legal, for all that. Both you and your new bestie may have to get used to that.

But thank you for - at last ! - saying something about the topic. It's a pity that you say absolutely nothing new, what you think is so brilliantly novel has been written many times on this thread before.

But it gives us all some hope: do you have a single original idea, even in relation to this topic ?

Of course, when you say 'burka', you mean 'nikab' ? That's okay, even that fool of an MP Andrew Leigh keeps using the word 'burka'. I've never seen a woman in a burka. Have you ?

And yes, I find pictures of women in burkas, not confronting, but distressing - that human beings should be reduced, thanks to 'culture', to chattels, confined to the kitchen and the bedroom, to child-rearing and food-provision and cleaning.

Cheers,

Joe

Jayb,

What "problems"?

(Aside from the conflated domestic threat constantly tooted by the govt?)

Advice: take a little tour of Oz news sites over the last week...and you'll find plenty of "dinky di" Aussies causing grief and harm to each other.

Then go and have a cuppa and a lie down - and try not to think of any politically motivated scare-mongering shouted from the rooftops by the govt (even if it does float your boat:)

Poirot, you have to realise that Jayb is still digesting Andrew Bolt from the weekend, and just this morning followed that with a long Alan Jones session, after spending 2 hours reading his Holy Bible the Daily Telegraph.

I think this is my fourth post in 24 hours - but what a sacrifice !

Gloriously off-topic (but not quite), I recommend this Guardian article:

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/oct/05/female-tv-detectives-move-over-morse

Now, there's a new theme for a TV detective drams series: a beautiful Muslima in a nikab, who has battled her way up to Detective-Inspector, and has to work in some academic or bureaucratic city (say, Canberra) against the headwind of a team of utterly useless professional Soy-Lattes and Greens.

I'd watch that !

Joe

'Runner, you are a disgusting individual suggesting women couldn't 'find a husband' because they were ugly. What do mean by 'fell prey to predators"?
People who are ugly on the inside are the most awful people on this earth... '

Susie if you call being swept off your feet by a man ( converting to his religion) only to find out that he had other wives elswhere not predatory behaviour I don't know what is. Maybe you would like to apologise for your disgusting conclusion although I doubt you have it in you.

and yes the reason she was swept off her feet was she seemed have much difficulty finding a man. She was soon dumped after being, used by such a ( ). This is not an uncommon occurance among muslims something you obviously refuse to believe largely due to your Christophobic nature.

MM: you have to realise that Jayb is still digesting Andrew Bolt from the weekend,

I read the Courier Mail & the Sunday mail. I couldn't tell you who wrote what article. I never look at who the writer is. Oh I like that girl writer that writes a funny page in the Lift out in the Sunday Mail. Forget her name. I just read the article, if I agree with it all well & good, if I don't, Same Same, but different. Sometimes I'll agree with parts & disagree with other parts. I couldn't tell left from right based on what they say. I don't listen to the Radio either, Haven't got time for that. I put the Reel to Reel on down in the shed & sing along all day.

Speaking about, and contrasting with, Catholic Nun's and the former 'habits' they wore, with that of the Burqa ? To my recollection I've NEVER seen any of the varieties of Nun's former 'habits' that completely covered their faces ?

Perhaps my memory is truly fading however, does anyone remember an order of Nuns that wore their headwear so large it almost looked like a large white 'sail' ? I hasten to add, I mean no disrespect by this simple enquiry ? I vaguely recall seeing them in France, as well as here in Oz ?

I bet I'm 100% correct in saying that runner has "made up" his abused and denigrated "white woman" story.

Nice "story" runner.

'I bet I'm 100% correct in saying that runner has "made up" his abused and denigrated "white woman" story. '

don't judge everyone by your own lack of standards May MAy.

Well, that's pretty much a "yes" answer. Thanks runner.

o sung wu,

And remember when Sally Field soared through the skies - as was her habit...aerodynamic and all that : )

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/28000000/The-Flying-Nun-the-flying-nun-28014414-340-248.gif

runner, What are you babbling about?

As if women the world over don't find themselves periodically dumped.
(Just an excuse to type the word "Christophobic")

May May,

Good old Andrew...latest is an article in the Herald Sun titled "Islam's Violent Tendencies"

In the hard print version, there's a big pic of Hitler underneath the banner headline.

I once got a mention in a Bolt Rant under my twitter handle...which (as you can imagine) is somewhat of an honour :)

Poirot

'As if women the world over don't find themselves periodically dumped.
(Just an excuse to type the word "Christophobic")'

why do plead such ignorance? Being dumped is just a bit different from marrying someone only to find out later they have a wife in Algeria and another country.

As for using the word Christophic it is obvious that you, Susie, May MAy and all other adherents of feminist dogma are just that. You defend the indefensible and rant at what is decent.

"Adherents of femminist dogma" --- oh poor little runner is feeling threatened. I think he needs emotional support. Runner, I know a kind and caring pastor, do you want his number? He's there to assist you to cope, please take advantage of this opportunity runner.

Hi there POIROT...

I remember Sally FIELDS quite well, but I don't recall her in a Movie where she's flying as Nun ? Obviously in an Aircraft ? She was also a Child Star as I remember ?
Thank you.

O Sung Wu,

Yeah, I think it was a TV series called "The Flying Nun", around 1970-1975, she's dressed in one of those big winged wimples. It launched Sally Field's career, with that big toothy grin. Glad to see she's still around.

Joe

G'day there LOUDMOUTH...

Thanks for the further info. Joe, I appreciate it. I quite liked her, she generally represented that image of a wholesome young modern American girl, who you'd never expect to hear even a minor expletive pass through her lips ? She also co-starred in that movie with Tom HANKS, 'Forrest Gump' playing the part of Tom's mother ? Or am I having another of my more frequent 'senior moments'?

Thanks again Joe.

Worth a read why a Muslim wants the Burka and all face coverings banned in Britian.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2695181/Why-I-Muslim-launching-campaign-ban-burka-Britain.html

Paul 1405,
Don't drag me into this, I've been supportive of the idea that people should be able to dress however they want, pointed out that Christians are supporting Islamic communities across Australia and noted the growing goodwill between the European new right and Muslims.
There's something you guys don't seem to understand about Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BbyxAhjIUI
Islamism is what it is but if it's anti-liberal, anti-feminist, pro family and promotes the subordination of the individual to the nation or the Ummah then it should be tolerated by right thinking people.
As I said before, I'm not threatened by Islam because White Nationalism is closer to the worldview expressed in the Koran than the scatterbrained, globalist consumer society we live in at present.

Joe,
Sally Field starred in the Gidget TV show before her role in The Flying Nun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFU9lM9uEvk
The premise of the flying nun was that she only weighed 40 kilos and the strong winds around her hilltop convent would catch her wimple and lift her off the ground.

My apologises to Jay of Melbourne for dragging him in on the wrong side.No apologies to Jay of Berlin got him tagged right, extreme right!
Come off it Runner, the Christian churches have been treating women as second class citizens for years, as do the majority of religions, including Islam.
What about the Christian belief that the bondage of marriage is for life. If a woman had an A-hole for a husband, a wife basher, an alcoholic, no matter what, the Christian dogma was and still is, she was his property for life no matter what. How many women (and children) have been subjected to a miserable existence because of this Christian belief? When are you going to admit religion is the invention of man for the benefit of men, nothing more that that.

>> What about the Christian belief that the bondage of marriage is for life<<

What absolute rubbish! Ever heard of a divorce? The stigma of divorce dissolved or 50 years ago. There is no Christian dogma demanding what you say. It's fine to have your radical left viewpoint but at least stick to reality before making your crazy accusations.

You don't do your argument any justice when you make up crap to support it.

Good one, CH.

In today's Australian, my friend Gary Johns has a brilliant article about the 'burka' - I think he means the nikab - in defence of women and against backward cultural practices and male domination.

Strongly recommended: liberals have hearts too :)

Joe

Most of the Christian women I know and have known are in happy relationships with loving husbands and they prefer to be there. Marriage as bondage is not the reality of christian women

"....has a brilliant article about the 'burka' - I think he means the nikab ..."

Isn't it amazing, don't you think, how so many commentators writing about this can't get the technicalities correct.

All we read is ".....has a brilliant article about the 'burka' - I think he means the nikab [or niqab]..."

As if there are hordes of women parading around Australian streets wearing either of them - some of them plotting to steal frozen chooks from Parliament by concealing them under their burqas!).

(ohmygosh!, we'd better institute a ban in that case!)

They are so rare in this country - that Bronnie may just have well instituted a ban on people wearing a Rabbitoh's mascot costume to Parliament - the average Aussie has more chance of coming into contact with one of those than a "burqa - I think he means niqab"..

The Burka is seen in some suburbs of Sydney, On entering a shop once in Auburn a Burka clad mother and three children were exiting. I happened to step aside to allow them out and looked the woman in the eye. She went off down the street shouting "Rape" "I've been raped". Where else other than the eyes, do you recognize a fully black garbed woman with mesh over their eyes?

Josephus,

What a load of tosh....(you obviously think we're all idiots here:)

"...I happened to step aside to allow them out and looked the woman in the eye..."

If she "had" been wearing a burqa - you wouldn't have been able to make eye contact.

".... She went off down the street shouting "Rape" "I've been raped"..."

Pull the other one - it's got bells on it.

<<Bronnie may just have well instituted a ban on people wearing a Rabbitoh's mascot costume to Parliament>> Poirot now your going too far, Ban Charlie! No way I'll tell him that.

I have not been able to wear my cashmere "Burger" ever since I put it through the tumble dryer. Didn't read the instructions 'Dry Clean Only' I put it on the other day, now I look like Cousin Itt, is Cousin Itt on Bronnie's band list, If not, why not, I'm off to Parliament House in my fluffy "Burger" to sit with the schoolies and watch the baboons perform. Anyone want to join me.

CH, The Catholic Church does not officially recognise divorce!

Poirot,
So you call me a liar.
The only thing you can see of a woman wearing a Burka is some shine of their eyes. The woman by her accent was Malayan. Everyone nearby was wondering of the strange response.

Paul1405,
Fortunately for you I think an old man in a frizzy cashmere dress would be waved through the parliament checkpoints and probably be presented with an arts grant on his way out.
I've seen a total of one woman in a burqa in my life, though there are loads of women who wear the niqab and chador around here, the question I want to ask is why every Muslim woman walking in the street is somehow required to be available for a face to face chat at all times? This seems to contradict the idea that women should be given their personal space in public places and, really, what life changing information could Arabic women possess that the rest of us need to go out of our way to interact with them and learn the mystery behind the veil?

Josephus,

"So you call me a liar."

Let' just say, that you appear to be embellishing this subject with an entertaining aside.

"The only thing you can see of a woman wearing a Burka is some shine of their eyes..."

Really...how fascinating!

Have a lot of experience intimidating burqa wearers do you?

(Lol!)

"...The woman by her accent was Malayan..."

The burqa derives from Afghanistan, not Malaysia.

Next....

Just seen the 9 o'clock news. Been a security scare at parliament house Bronnie has had to detain a load of odd balls, doing doughnuts in a mini bus in the car park! On board were a couple of shifty charterers claiming to be 'Bananas in Pajamas' as if! Pepper Pig, the Easter Bunny running late, Santa Clause a bit early and an old fart in a frizzy cashmere "berger" What is the country coming too. Oh! and some guy in Budgie Smugglers and he claimed to be the PM himself, God forgive us!

Bronnie wanted to place these burqa wearing security risks behind closed glass, segregated from adults watching parliament and segregated from the parliamentarians. This was touted as a security measure for our protection from possible attack.

However, isn't it interesting to note that Bronnie was VERY, VERY happy to place these same burqa wearing, possible terrorists, wait for it --- AMONGST CHILDREN in the precise enclosure where all the schoolchildren sit.

This proves the motivation was NOT security. The motivation was the government "agenda" of trying to vilify Muslims as much as possible, without actually admitting it, thus gain public support for going to war again. When the water got too hot and the government started receiving electoral backlash, Hero Tony "suddenly" stepped in and quashed the idea of burqa clad Muslim segregation. It's like a comic opera.

May May, there seems to be some confusion as to what people are actually wearing, is it "the berger" or "the burper" I do believe some ethnic's pronounce it "the beanie". Just the other day I was in my favorite 'Lowes' store and asked the sales lad could I see his range of burqu's, to which, with a puzzled look, he pointed me in the direction of the Hawaii shirts. I can honestly say a floral shirt wrapped around ones head does nothing for ones sartorial elegance.

Paul,

As far as I can make out, in Australia the article is formally referred to as..... "The burqa - I think he means niqab".

Poirot, the burning question! Will I be allowed into parliament house in my Hawaii shirt and stubbies, naturally I will be wearing thongs, I do not wish to appear uncouth'd. Or is Bronnies mandatory uniform of budgie smugglers absolutely necessary. Will I be sat with the schoolies?

Poirot: "The burqa - I think he means niqab".

Poirot, people are using the Term "Burka" as a general term for all the different types offull head covering, but you know that.

I actually prefer "Bucket" or "Paper Bag" myself. Why would you do that to yourself for a start. I suggested it to my missus & she whacked me. :-)

I think some of these women, if not ordered to by their husbands, are wearing it as an act of defiance in favour of their dangerous religion. But your know that too.

MM: AMONGST CHILDREN in the precise enclosure where all the schoolchildren sit.

No I gather they were going to let the children sit in the regular Gallery. They didn't want to frighten them, apparently.

You have refused to answer the question about your Sister sister. So, I surmise that your story is Bull$#it.

You keep going on about my preference in reading but you're wrong there too. You are not really good at this are you? I'm an agnostic when it comes to Politics & who favours whom. I really don't take in interest in that sort of thing. Some thing I agree wit, some things I don't & done buy the same author, who ever it was. I don't look at that bit.

Jayb,

"No I gather they were going to let the children sit in the regular Gallery. They didn't want to frighten them, apparently."

BS, actually.

It was a hasty decision...and "burqa - I think he means niqab" wearers were to be ensconced behind glass barriers where the school children are seated.

Full-stop.

Wounded Goose,

I strongly recommend Janet Albrechtsen's article in today's Australian: I'm confident that even you could learn something from it :) But it explores some of the social and political complexities involved, so perhaps not.

And thank you for that repetitive imitation: I'm flattered, sort of.

Normal people,

I've never seen a woman in a burka in real life. I see women in nikabs perhaps every day that I'm in the city. Perhaps I'm quite wrong but it does seem that women from Malaysia and Indonesia prefer the hijab, with women from Aceh wearing a more lacey style of hijab. But (and how would I know?) I don't think I've seen many women from that part of the world in nikabs. I'd take a huge punt and suggest that nikabi tend to come from around Saudi Arabia and Somalia.

And isn't it possible that Afghan women don't wear the burka in Australia precisely because they wanted to get the hell away from it ? That's one reason why they're here, where they don't have to wear the bloody thing ? That, yes indeed, it is very much a symbol of the cultural oppression of women, something they can be freer from in Australia ?

Joe

poirot: BS, actually.

How do they say, "You don't know that."

poirot: It was a hasty decision. Full stop.

Ego itero, "You don't know that."

"I'm responsible for what I write, not for what you understand."

Another one of my T-Shirts. I've go another 9 coming too. Goodness, you bait sooooo easily. It's soooo much fun. ;-) You really should not be so angry all the time. You know, it's not good for your health.

May May, I'm waiting... I think we're ALL waiting.

Loud Goose,

".... But it explores some of the social and political complexities involved..."

Nothing wrong with measured discussion.

However, Bronnie stumped up to ban the "burqa" as a matter of "security" - even though a burqa wearer would already have been comprehensively scanned and allowed entry to the gallery.

That's the point I've been making - and that's also the reason why the entire charade fell over.

My point being that the govt merely tried one on to pour more fuel on the fire (they lit) by instituting a "ban" on something so rarely encountered in Australia and even more rarely (like never) encountered at Parliament House.

My critique is one of the govt inventing a "domestic terror threat" and then ratcheting up the agenda by pulling "stunts".

I'm not against sensible discussion of cultural/religious mores and their compatibility with a secular society like ours.

So I guess you would commend Prime Minister Abbott for slapping it down, as much as was within his power as (in the Speaker's official view) just another MP ?

Come on, say it: "Good on you, Tony !"

Cheers :)

Joe

Jayb,

"poirot: BS, actually.

How do they say, "You don't know that."

Yes I do.

"poirot: It was a hasty decision. Full stop.

Ego itero, "You don't know that."

Yes I do.

http://linkis.com/com.au/h4hiK

That's a link from Murdoch's Sunday Telegraph - Samantha Maiden attempting to exonerate Credlin and Abbott (obviously with access to the top):

"In an act of utter stupidity, the presiding officers Bronwyn Bishop and Senate President Stephen Parry got themselves into a flap over gossip that a bunch of (non-Muslim) protesters were planning to turn up in burqas and create a public disturbance.

With no consultations with the Prime Minister’s office, they issued a temporary ban on burqas to try and divert the alleged burqa troupe behind the glass cage where the noisy schoolchildren sit. This then exploded into the media as a plan to cage women in burqas behind glass."

(Bronnie's the scapegoat - a bit of karma happening there, methinks.)

Lol!...as if "anything" would have been instituted without permission from the top.

Pigs might fly.

poirot: My critique is one of the govt inventing a "domestic terror threat"

You don't believe their is a domestic terror threat? To you, maybe, as a possible instigator, but to the rest of us. We take it seriously.

As the cowboy said to the Arab, "We haven't started playing Cowboys & Islamists, yet."

Jayb said, "You have refused to answer the question about your sister So, I surmise that your story is Bulls#it."

You got it wrong, yet again. Your juvenile question has been answered half a day ago, and addressed directly to you. Maybe you should learn to read. Go to page 10 of the atheist thread, and get educated Jayb.

Paul 1405,
LOL, you shop at Lowes.
I have a growing collection of lumpy 3XL windcheaters and ill fitting flannelette shirts from Lowes due to the fact that my mother in law thinks that my back should be "warm" at all times.
You'd go for those voluminous nylon slacks they sell right? The ones with the extra deep pockets to hold your bag of peppermints, your glasses case and your dog eared copy of Power Without Glory?

Interesting link to the subject, here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

Dear Is Mise,

Thank You for the link.

Most interesting and greatly appreciated.

Concealed identification in public has never been the custom of Australia, where the traditions and way of life are diametrically opposed to hiding behind a mask in public. Even full bearded men have attracted suspicion, making comments like "It's a mean dog that barks from behind a bus" not uncommon.

It is inconceivable that someone could show up to a naturalisation ceremony in a mask and continue to wear it, or even wearing sunglasses, during the ceremony and even while taking the Oath of Allegiance.

It isn't just a question of whether the lips can be seen moving, it is regarded as the height of ignorance and displaying contempt for the citizenship that is being awarded by Australians not just by the government that is supposed to be there to serve their interests and maintain their values and way of life.

The citizenship ceremony is not theatre for other values to be reaffirmed, but a place and time where the fortunate recipient of citizenship should be reserving and devoting his/her entire attention and respect to Australia.

Australians also regard it as intolerable where faced with a public official, or a company employee for that matter, who is providing front line service to them but is not displaying his/her face and eyes.

While there will always be some who find it convenient to scoff at that, there are examples where over the years the Australian cultural requirement, not just preference, for facial contact has been rigorously upheld. Imagine the uproar from the present defenders of the burka or veil, mask or "ruband" variously said to be 'chosen' or 'forced' on certain Muslim women, if they were to be 'confronted' by a police motorcyclist wearing dark glasses and the officer did not immediately remove them?

The same media outlets who now promote face masks previously ran campaigns (rightly too!) against police wearing sunglasses or removing identifying numbers and names.

to be continued..

continued..

Australians should be showing their objection to masks being approved by political parties who cave in to media interference in policy and to blackmail threats by ethnic groups that they will withdraw their support. Such object by citizens should be done politely and civilly as is our way, for instance by objecting to serve on a jury where anyone in the Court is wearing a mask that conceals his/her face. Again, there is no need nor call to be impolite to a public official whop expects to scrutinise your face and facial reactions but you are never to see his/her own. Just excuse oneself and seek another appointment.

It is OUR right as Australians to maintain our culture too. It will be remembered at election time, it is the very foolish politician who believes that the public forget and will always be susceptible to their spin at a later time when votes are needed. The public know how these politicians and their parties regard the election as the sole time that the 'punters'(sic) get a say.

Any wonder that governments are being shown the exit door more readily these days?

My, <making comments like "It's a mean dog that barks from behind a bus" not uncommon>,

should be,

<making comments like "It's a mean dog that barks from behind a BUSH" not uncommon>.

I corrected that earlier but apparently lost the post.

Did anyone catch the Myers fashion parade yesterday? The new summer collection featuring the latest burqa's from Kabul and Cairo, was simply divine. Jen Hawkins looked ravishing as usual in a Abdul of Bagbad creation, a rather saucy number, a revealing off the shoulder nijab ensemble by Abdul. Abdul has set the tone for this summer with a marvelous selection in black, which I do anticipate will be the eye poppers at this years spring racing in Melbourne.
I hate to be a gossiper! but a little birdie did tell me, Bronnie Bishop, our very own chic of fashion, has be seen in 'The House of Mohammad' in Collins Street several times, trying on some of the very latest in Middle Eastern attire, one must keep up appearances when one is in the public eye, as one does.

Jay, you forgot the ill fitting trackey dacks, you know the 'Lowes' kind $9.99, which have them pockets which give you instant access to your hanky and TAB guide hidden inside your undies! They come in a variety of colors, dark grey and light grey. How many pairs do you have?

Confusion reigns supreme in Canberra, the latest communique from on top, states. "School children in burqa's will be locked behind barbed wire with the dirty old men in raincoats, AND! Tony Abbott, AND! Bill Shorten, that's the real rub, being locked up with Abbott and Shorten."

I for one would pay good money to see Chrusty Milne and Syphy Hanson Young wearing burqas.

I would even settle for a paper bag over the face.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Now, now.

We appreciate your sense of humour.

However, you can't be against something for
some and then for it for others. Well you
can - but lets keep it balanced.

I'm sure that many other posters could come
up with paper bags for quite a few of our pollies
on both sides of the political spectrum. Or instead
of covering their faces - what about just their
mouths? Duck-tape anyone?

cont'd ...

Oops, sorry for my typo.

Of course I meant - duct-tape.

My apologies to ducks.

Christopher Pyne and Bronwyn Bishop could use
some duck-tape and this time I do mean the bird!

Sorta like this?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bq3MJ23CUAAviJY.jpg

SM: Sorta - like this.

Good one son. I'da used a lot more than that & on the other end as well.

Foxy: I'm sure that many other posters could come up with paper bags for quite a few of our pollies.

My missus prefers a Bucket, Err... 'ang on, no, that's me.

All very droll, however out of respect for the OP maybe a return to the subject of the thread?

I am interested to know for instance, how many here would find it acceptable and reasonable to be required to deal with front line government service staff wearing a mask that conceals the face? As it is, public service staff have with Union support been able to remove their surnames from their badges and desks. They are permitted to conceal their surnames in electronic communication too. That is a practice many of the public already find unacceptable, but it is the case, regardless of public feelings on the matter, or so it appears. Their privacy is paramount whereas your private details and business are discussed in front of other employees and members of the public.

Speaking for myself, I would object most strongly to being served by a Town Planner who was masked, or whose name was being withheld. Government is already anonymous and impossible to hold to account. All of my details relevant (and some would say irrelevant) to my development proposal are laid bare and made available online to the public and through additional copies of documents I must supply.

Should members of a jury be allowed to conceal their faces? What about the accused and witnesses? Maybe the judge might prefer anonymity?

What about Naturalisation ceremonies, should masks be allowed there? What are the priorities?

Come now FOXY that's not like you ! :-) LOL

Still, as SHADOW MINISTER has quite rightly opined, there would be quite a good argument, for the likes of Ms S. HANSON-YOUNG, Ms C. MILNE, together with a few other politicians, representing all three genders, who could make good use of the traditional Burqa ? I suppose I'm being somewhat facetious, still the idea has some merit I would've thought ?

There again speaking of 'meritorious argument' perhaps there are many others herein, who might well suggest the services of some mechanical contrivance could be engaged to indelibly curb my big mouth as well ?

A question without levity if I may...Is the Burqa considered the most formal and compliant of all Islamic female attire, given that not even the eyes may be seen ? Surely it must be, I couldn't for a moment conceive of anything else being more self-deprecating or demeaning for any Islamic woman, unlucky enough to reside in of those fundamentalist Muslim countries ? What a miserable, restrictive, and ignominious existence they must have. Why in God's name is it allowed. Surely, indentured slavery and marital captivity was outlawed over a century and a half ago ! Those poor, poor, women.

Hey!
Leave Sarah alone she's my own true love and I have a plan to lure her to the dark side, I'd have her in ermine and cloth of gold I would.

Paul 1405,
I have several pairs of those dacks, I pull them up over my belly so they're a perfect match with a polo shirt tucked in, brown socks and masseur sandals for the off duty Turkish cabbie look.
We should get dressed up in our Lowes trackies and go to the dogs one night.

O Sung
...assuming of course that muslim wives aren't right little ravers when the sun goes down and the Burqa comes off.
I wonder what the subscription rate to Victoria's Secret is among the Islamically inclined ladies?

JAY OF MELBOURNE...

What are we to do with you ? Before I 'try' to ever so gently excoriate you for your Un-Burqa like remarks, you'd agree it must be inordinately hot over there in those desert climes ? You'd reckon those poor ladies are very hot, attired from head to toe in these black garments ? The moment they'd arrived home, their first wish is to 'hit the Tub', I would think. Before or after the 'sun goes down' would be immaterial I would imagine ?

Anyway, back to your initial remark...assuming some ladies are; 'right little ravers' I think you put it ? Firstly it must be determined, whether or not 'the sun had come down', or is it a 'twenty four hour' thing and simply irrelevant ? Gees, now you're corrupting my gentle soul !

I'm glad that some humour has been introduced
into this debate. As well as some serious thoughts
have been raised regarding the use of facial and
body coverings. I still feel however that although
we are all entitled to practice whatever religious
and cultural practices we like but it must be done
within our framework of laws and what is found to be
acceptable and not acceptable by the community in this country.

Here ya go, folks...in the name of security...

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/court-headscarf-removal-order-an-insult-to-cancer-survivors-dignity/story-fnii5sms-1227083148996

"A CHEMOTHERAPY patient who was forced to remove her headscarf to enter the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court is demanding a formal apology.

Breast cancer survivor Julie Gale says she felt humiliated when a male security guard ­ordered her to take off the scarf in front of dozens of other people filing into court.

“I felt so affronted by it, it was so insensitive and humiliating,” said Ms Gale, a Brighton East comedy writer and women’s health ­advocate.

She was attending court to support her daughter, who had been the victim of a vicious ­assault at Flinders St station.

She said she had put her bag through the security scanner and walked through the metal detector when a security guard pointed her out to his ­colleague, who told her to ­remove the garment.

“He pointed to my head and said: ‘Take if off’. I said to him: ‘What, you want me to take this off? I’ve got a bald head underneath’."

Seems one doesn't have to cover one's face to be humiliated in public.

Shame we've morphed into a paranoid fearful population - at least at the institutional level.

The marvels of modern Australia.

Dear Poirot,

I know what it feels like to be humiliated
by a security guard. It happened to me in
Parliament House in Canberra when I was asked to
take my small fur hat off infront of everyone.
I had gone through chemo and still had bald patches
on my head where the hair hadn't grown back. However,
he explained to me that those were the rules and that
was the end of it. This happened some time ago -
before all this current fuss.
Much as I felt embarrassed - I realised that the man
was only doing his job.

Just a note.

France banned the Burka/Niquab. etc, in 2010. In July, 2014, The European Court of Human Rights, upheld the Ban.

The EC of HR, "Accepted the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face in public could undermine the notion of "living together."

All those against the Ban, "Stick that in ya pipe & smoke it."

Do you notice a trend here. The places where max "security" is vital, so say our fearless leaders, you know the ones, the people responsible for all the trouble in the first place, are the places where the warmongers and societies establishment hang out, parliament house, the courts, etc. No screening on a crowded bus, or in public shopping center, its not required. In those places you can take your AK47 with you, no questions asked. If you were to approach the driver on a public bus and say "Driverrrr!.. the bloke down the back's gotta Bomb! the response would be "Christ!..I'm run'n 15 minutes late already.. what do ya want me to do about it!"

Poirot, G4S now that name rings a bell! That security guard might have been the twin brother of one of their Manus Island men, the place where that mob conduct basic training in asylum seeker bashing.

Foxy, gee a small fur hat, that is stupid and ridiculous, its all about "THE POWER". Reminds me of those strange little men at the airports who throw your half a jar of 'brylcreem' in the bin, just in case you were contemplating putting on your head and terrorising your fellow passenger in cattle class on 'Nostar' Airlines.

Dear Paul,

The security guard who made me take my hat
off in Parliament House's Public Gallery, was
simply going by those antiquated rules. I don't
think "power" came into the equation. And perhaps
it was a silly thing to have insisted on - but
his job depends on him carrying out those rules.
Silly as you and I may think they are.

Sorry to hear that, Foxy...but there was no reason under those circumstances that the security officer shouldn't have had access to a private viewing area if he'd "really" thought your little fur hat was a security threat...what did he think it had - mange?

Yes, Paul, it does read as if that security officer was exercising his "power" - she had passed her bag through a security scanner and had walked through a metal detector. on her head was a "scarf" - not a top hat.

You're spot on with the rest of your post too.

What has the Abbott govt's latest faux hysteria achieved?

This?

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/attacks-on-muslim-mothers-mount-20141009-113wdj.html

"A Muslim mother verbally abused at a Melbourne playground and ordered to stop her child from playing with others is among dozens of attacks against the Islamic community in recent weeks.

It is one of at least six incidents nationally in which a Muslim mother has been abused, either in front of her children or while heavily pregnant, that appears on a list of abuse being compiled by Muslim community leaders.

Overall there have been 30 recorded attacks, mainly on women wearing the hijab – in the three weeks since anti-terror raids swept Sydney and the feared Islamic State stepped up their threats.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Ken Lay has heard anecdotal reports about Muslim members of the Melbourne community becoming the object of abuse in a heightened terror environment.
Advertisement

However, police data suggests the community is not reporting these attacks to police, something Mr Lay wants to see change."

So, to sum up...before the Abbott govt decided its best way out of the woeful hole it dug for itself was to demonise one section of the community, choof off our armed forces on a "humanitarian" mission and erode our freedoms with new laws, Muslim women were going about their business like the rest of us.

Now they're being abused and in some cases attacked.

All for the Abbott govt's electoral kudos.

Dear Poirot,

Of course there were a lot of things the guard could
have done but obviously he wasn't trained in that
way at that time. Remember this was before all this
"security" business arose. I can't help but wonder though
what the rules now are concerning women's head gear in
the Public Gallery at Parliament House.

poirot: Now they're being abused and in some cases attacked.

This is terrible. Australia is a terrible place, especially for moslems. If I was a moslem, I would throw a tanty & leave for a Country that would be more accepting of my Religion. Bloody Australians. Next they'll be siding with the French.

Foxy, I can't agree << I was asked to take my small fur hat off in front of everyone >> These people should be given enough "power" so they can use some discretion.

How was it that Liberal senator Bill Heffernan took a mocked-up "pipe bomb" into Parliament House to show how new security arrangements are "a joke". Under the new system, some passholders and their belongings are not scanned when entering the building.
More a case of some are seen as the right sorts, while the riff-raff are always suspect! There should be a special queue for Heffernan, and his mob, the kuku queue.

Paul,

Yes, indeedy...but Heffernan did that because the govt had cut security at Parliament House in the budget....to save a few $$$.

They cut it and for months it was like that...mind you not a peep out of Lambie, Christensen or Bernadi.

That was all before Credlin and Co came up with their wonderful "let's get some votes" agenda of demonising Muslims and tying it to IS.

Brilliant!

(Jayb - go talk to a lamppost :)

I was going through the electronic screening device at Sydney Airport when all he "bells and whistles" went off, I was wearing a back support belt that had metal stiffeners in it.

Fat men appeared, at the run, all festooned with heavy belts dripping with (in)appropriate gear, shouting as they closed in "Don't move!, Don't move!!"

My wife was embarrassed but I wasn't; in fact I thought that it was hilarious.

When the bikies rioted, and one man was killed, at he same Airport the Security people, fat or slim were no where to be seen.

Is Mise, was it like the movie 'Mall Cop'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPeo44RPySc

Poirot, if Australia decides to ban the Burka (etc) as did France. How do you think the mossies would go taking Australia to the Human Rights Commission? The Lamp post told me to give you a big cuddle.

I must admit FOXY, you do exhibit a rather charitable disposition towards those security people who required you to remove your fur hat. I must admit as do I. The poor buggers are so poorly trained, as are their Trainers, who are also similarly (poorly) trained. Poorly remunerated, and tasked with an excessively repetitive, and very dull, tedious job.

I understand the hourly pay rate is atrocious, many relying on copious amounts of overtime, to even earn a basic living wage.

The job is, so tedious, and so very boring, it's little wonder they try to extend their authority a bit, by picking an easy mark ? A mark such as your good-self (a lady), and unwarrantably hassle them. What's needed with these important, but highly monotonous jobs, is some legitimate 'Job Enrichment'. Permitting the operatives a bit of real pride in their work ?

Simply put, when these security people fail in their allotted task, they're dismissed. Though their failure, could have a catastrophic effect on us all, the public !

It isn't only about security.

Although for the benefit of the ignorant and frivolous it should be mentioned that some devices will not register on a metal detector and can be in small flexible packages, liquid in plastic bags for instance, as well. Has anyone ever wondered at the list of non permissible items on an international flight, or then stopped to reflect that the risk is not treated entirely, not by any stretch of the imagination?

Someone mentioned a grandstanding politician who took a dummy pipe bomb into the Parliament. He should have been censured by the Parliament, removed and charged by police and given a rest in a gaol. One jackass gone from the House.

otb,

"Someone mentioned a grandstanding politician who took a dummy pipe bomb into the Parliament. He should have been censured by the Parliament, removed and charged by police and given a rest in a gaol. One jackass gone from the House."

I thought he was grandstanding too...until I noted the govt had cut security.

Now his grandstanding makes sense...after all he waltzed into Parliament House with a dummy pipe bomb.

You say...

"Although for the benefit of the ignorant and frivolous it should be mentioned that some devices will not register on a metal detector and can be in small flexible packages, liquid in plastic bags for instance....."

And then deride the pollie who brought attention to the govt's shonky cheapskate security - when someone could walk in with an undetected dummy pipe bomb.

Funny?