Politics

You two are ■■■■ at SJWing.

I FEEL TRIGGERED BY THE LACK OF ECHO

3 Likes

All those MPs that renounced their citizenship whilst in parliament will be rendered ineligible. There are plenty of decisions out of the High Court starting with Sue v Hill. It’s very simple - you cannot have dual citizenship when you get elected. Renouncing it once elected is inconsistent with s44. Any other decision by the HCA is judicial activism for mine. This has been well settled area of constitutional law.

1 Like

I agree with what @Heffsgirl is saying.
.
But my original point was that anyone walking along the street with their faces and bodies covered to the extent that I cant read any visual cues, intimidates me.

Nothing to do with what people should or shouldn’t wear, their rights their religion or anything. My comment was about how it makes me take a step back and reassess my situation with regard to my safety.

1 Like

Its not people being covered. Its being covered to the extent that I cant read visual cues.

We do have standards of dress in society. We also have standards of dress on private property.

I don’t think banning any type of dress is likely to be useful to anyone and is likely to have the opposite effect and become a symbol of freedom ,exactly as happened in Iran.
The only time I would find it acceptable is on health and safety grounds, i.e.poor visibility, and in legal/identification situations.

It’s understandable. Fear of the unknown is a basic human driver.

But it’s also undeniable that intimidation can be felt without being given. The Burqa isn’t entirely to blame for that.

I’d say we have minimal standards of dress in society and none on private property and as Pauline showed, there are already ID check principles etc in place.

For you, it’s about you. That’s ok too.

I completely agree with this Scorpio and feel exactly the same way. It’s a shame feeling that way is characterised as being against Islam, inclusion or religion. It has nothing to do with that. Personally, I find it confronting and uncomfortable when someone is talking to me with their face covered and only the slits of their eyes showing.

I don’t agree with political stunts, I don’t think politics is the arena for stunts. I think it’s also unfortunate that Hanson did it in the name of “national interests”. It’s not about national interests. The idea that Hanson offended the “500,000 Muslims within Australia” is a disgraceful proposition. The undeniable fact is - the wearing of the burqa is completely oppressive against women. It is not a religious requirement and is a cultural requirement. Muslim women wear it, as the Grand Mufti of Australia said, because Muslim men cannot be held responsible for what they do if a woman is uncovered. He compared it to “unconvered meat” and implied uncovered Muslim women invite sexual assault. Both sides of politics seemingly actively support this proposition by dressing it up as “inclusion” and by defending the indefensible. It is not inclusion, it is oppression of women and so far from something that I would support. Islamic women should have the choice of wearing the burqa but they simply do not because of the fear of what may happen to them if they do not. The fact is, if a Muslim woman does not wear the burqa and is alone with a man at a bus stop or public arena and that Muslim man rapes her, the woman has brought shame on their family and is punished.

The same can be said about muslim women who don’t cover themselves when they swim. Again, a cultural requirement and not a religious requirement. If a Muslim woman wants to swim in a public pool - the centre is required to put black curtains up to block the view of the public and segregate the entire centre. I mean really, do we honestly want to support such an oppressive proposition? How does this not fly in the face of inclusion? What an appalling deprivation of freedom. Unfortunately, it seems most do but I do not support it at all. If that makes me racist or not inclusive so be it but my values do not extend to supporting this sort of oppression of women.

If anyone needs further clarification of this, read infidel and the countless reports of Muslim Aceh women who have been publically shamed for not wearing a burqa.

1 Like

Syria bans Burqas. Morocco does too.
So it’s not like it’s a controversial move even for hard line hotspots.

But seriously I’m not worried or bothered by them(burqas).

The bloke reading white Arabic on a black background sitting next to me on the train and then checking out pictures of dead people on his phone worries me.

Some people have a real low threshold for violence. Need a healthier outlet eg footy.

1 Like

I agree with this - it’s not controversial. Plenty of hardened middle eastern countries ban them. I don’t lose sleep over the burqa, there are much bigger challenges that, in my view, Islam poses to a western democracy. I just cannot stand the grand standing on both sides when the burqa topic is raised. It needs to be called out for what it is and its oppressive.

Firstly Its not religious clothing.
Secondly someone is having a say in what these women wear. And in many cases it isn’t them.
It is dictated to them from the time, in many cases, they are in primary school. They have had no say.

But none of this was what my original post was about.

Feels like the politics thread of old now

Only if God can watch

Ban covering of the face in public unless required for medical reasons. No need to ban one piece of clothing.

1 Like

This should be kinda obvious, but seems to need restating for the PHON supporters who want to marginalise and alienate…

I’m not a PHON supporter and I do not support the wearing of the burqa - I disagree with Lewis’ assertion that banning the burqa has anything to do with marginalising Muslims. If Muslims take removing oppression of women from Australia within the Muslim community then that’s a matter for them. Lewis should be actively supporting that cause. That said, Lewis is the same person who said in senate estimates that there is no link between immigration and terrorism. So I’m not sure Lewis has much credibility in this space.

1 Like

In a way the joke is on Pauline. She takes up the burqa ban as a security issue as part of her anti Islam agenda. However, the burqa is more strongly enforced by Saudi Arabia, the so- called good guys in defence alliances .
In Iran, the bad guys, the dress code requires the hijab and even there there is a huge debate about such oppression forced on women. Some there boycott the female- only exercise parks where the hijab is not required, because it marginalises women.
As to finding the burqa confrontational, it might be disconcerting working in a professional capacity, but it is unlikely that any burqa wearers would be permitted to function in a professional capacity ( other than the token news readers in a media environment subject to absolute state control).

The shah banned the veil in Iran. There were many elderly women who had only ever gone out in public wearing a veil and didn’t feel comfortable being in public without a veil. They became effectively housebound.
Ergo wearing the veil very soon became a symbol of resistance.
It all went down hill from there.
So from a means of oppression to a symbol of resistance then back to a means of oppression

2 Likes

EFA

I find people in active wear not doing excerise far more offensive.

3 Likes

Especially people in active wear who are clearly not active …

1 Like