Burqa ban in Australia on the cards

[~candice~]

Man, I think there is reason to not allow covered faces in banks, but what harm is there in a park? None...

Why?

Many children are taken from parks. You have no idea who's under that covering.

Yes, but do you have any reason to suspect that a person wearing a full face covering is more or less likely to be a child abductor? Or is that just convenient speculation to get them to not wear their head coverings???

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Enjoy your fear driven perspective then, I have mine and you have yours.

[nebula]

The threat of Sharia law is always going to be there, but it is quite remote at the moment, I don't think that Islam has as much of a foot hold here as it does in the states?

There is certainly much less fear here, than what I read in the posts in this thread .

One word -

9/11

This is Australia Neb...

You asked why you sensed fear from us.

This is the question I was answering.

[Guest man]

I've already made concession for certain settings (health and security).

Do you realize how hypocritical that is? What about the freedom of religious expression?

You want them to have the freedom to express their faith, but you're denying them certain rights because of their faith.

[~candice~]

The threat of Sharia law is always going to be there, but it is quite remote at the moment, I don't think that Islam has as much of a foot hold here as it does in the states?

There is certainly much less fear here, than what I read in the posts in this thread .

One word -

9/11

This is Australia Neb...

You asked why you sensed fear from us.

This is the question I was answering.

That's fine, and I'm just explaining why you sense very little fear from me.

[~candice~]

I've already made concession for certain settings (health and security).

Do you realize how hypocritical that is? What about the freedom of religious expression?

You want them to have the freedom to express their faith, but you're denying them certain rights because of their faith.

How is that hypocritical?

We all acknowledge that the right to religious freedom of expression doesn't extend to the ability to impede on others, for example, to put their health at risk, or security at risk. So it stands to reason that there would be concessions for health etc.

I'm denying their rights in the same situations that I would deny others... not hypocritical at all... it's the same standard for all.

[Guest man]

I've already made concession for certain settings (health and security).

Do you realize how hypocritical that is? What about the freedom of religious expression?

You want them to have the freedom to express their faith, but you're denying them certain rights because of their faith.

How is that hypocritical?

We all acknowledge that the right to religious freedom of expression doesn't extend to the ability to impede on others, for example, to put their health at risk, or security at risk. So it stands to reason that there would be concessions for health etc.

I'm denying their rights in the same situations that I would deny others... not hypocritical at all... it's the same standard for all.

Whatever.

[~candice~]

Night man

[ladypeartree]

Candice you have said you have had almost no mainland terrorist attacks from islamic extremists ... those of us that live where we have had such attacks will always be more concerned.

Do you also defend the rights of teenage gangs to go into shopping centres wearing " hoodies " ? I didnt see you shout so loud when they were denied access whilst wearing them.

You want to allow the full face covering EXCEPT when it would be inconvienient ... in a bank / as a doctor or nurse / as a teacher ... so in effect you are saying that those who want to follow this practise should not be allowed to handle money or teach or train as medical staff ?? THAT to me is more disciminatory. You in effect turn these women into second class people who have to rely on others to function.

As for " have I spoken to these women " ?? YES and many of them say as you state that it gives them " more freedom " BUT those that I have met that ( for instance ) came to college on the understanding that they wore full hijab were for the most part more that happy to rid themselves of it as soon as they were away from the influence or fear of what the men in the family would say or do if they uncovered their faces.

A few hundred years ago wonem here in the UK were not allowed to go to work other than as domestic servants or teachers ( who were often little more than domestic servants with education ) .. a woman doctor was considered an abomination, women were not allowed to have their own bank accounts, women were not allowed to show so much as an ankle without being accused of immorality .....MY great great grandmothers faught hard for the right to equality even though some who were not being ill treated objected to this ..if they ahd listened to the ones that were very content to be a mans vassil then you and I would not have the freedoms we do now.

I DO understand where you are coming from , I DO understand that you see this as the thin edge of the wedge against all religeons BUT I see it more along the lines of equality .... here at least muslims demand and generally get far more freedom than those of us that are Christians and that included the rights to dress / wear " ornamental " weapons / have more than one wife / do as they like in any country they move to whilst defending their own country in denying equality or freedom for those who live or work in their homeland

[~candice~]

Candice you have said you have had almost no mainland terrorist attacks from islamic extremists ... those of us that live where we have had such attacks will always be more concerned.

Yes, I agree.

Do you also defend the rights of teenage gangs to go into shopping centres wearing " hoodies " ? I didnt see you shout so loud when they were denied access whilst wearing them.

I know nothing about this? I didn't should about it because I heard nothing of it.

You want to allow the full face covering EXCEPT when it would be inconvienient ... in a bank / as a doctor or nurse / as a teacher ... so in effect you are saying that those who want to follow this practise should not be allowed to handle money or teach or train as medical staff ?? THAT to me is more disciminatory. You in effect turn these women into second class people who have to rely on others to function.

Actually I wouldn't go that far. I would be fine with someone working in a bank wearing a niquab, maybe just not as a customer. I don't want them to be second class citizens at all. I feel like I am extending MORE rights to them by allowing them to wear this dress, than those who want to outright ban it. I'd let a teacher wear a niquab. I'd let a doctor wear one, as long as they were willing to wash their hands. Not sure why you thought I wouldn't?

As for " have I spoken to these women " ?? YES and many of them say as you state that it gives them " more freedom " BUT those that I have met that ( for instance ) came to college on the understanding that they wore full hijab were for the most part more that happy to rid themselves of it as soon as they were away from the influence or fear of what the men in the family would say or do if they uncovered their faces.

A few hundred years ago wonem here in the UK were not allowed to go to work other than as domestic servants or teachers ( who were often little more than domestic servants with education ) .. a woman doctor was considered an abomination, women were not allowed to have their own bank accounts, women were not allowed to show so much as an ankle without being accused of immorality .....MY great great grandmothers faught hard for the right to equality even though some who were not being ill treated objected to this ..if they ahd listened to the ones that were very content to be a mans vassil then you and I would not have the freedoms we do now.

I understand. There are islamic women who feel oppressed by their dress, but also some who feel liberated by it. I just want both sets of rights to be protected.

I DO understand where you are coming from , I DO understand that you see this as the thin edge of the wedge against all religeons BUT I see it more along the lines of equality .... here at least muslims demand and generally get far more freedom than those of us that are Christians and that included the rights to dress / wear " ornamental " weapons / have more than one wife / do as they like in any country they move to whilst defending their own country in denying equality or freedom for those who live or work in their homeland

I guess its hard to comment on this, because living in a different culture, I am barely exposed to your 'islamic culture' aspect at all (hope that makes sense). All I can say is that assimilation is not as much of a deal here, as it is there.

[Arthur Durnan]

Candice you have said you have had almost no mainland terrorist attacks from islamic extremists ... those of us that live where we have had such attacks will always be more concerned.

Yes, I agree.

Do you also defend the rights of teenage gangs to go into shopping centres wearing " hoodies " ? I didnt see you shout so loud when they were denied access whilst wearing them.

I know nothing about this? I didn't should about it because I heard nothing of it.

You want to allow the full face covering EXCEPT when it would be inconvienient ... in a bank / as a doctor or nurse / as a teacher ... so in effect you are saying that those who want to follow this practise should not be allowed to handle money or teach or train as medical staff ?? THAT to me is more disciminatory. You in effect turn these women into second class people who have to rely on others to function.

Actually I wouldn't go that far. I would be fine with someone working in a bank wearing a niquab, maybe just not as a customer. I don't want them to be second class citizens at all. I feel like I am extending MORE rights to them by allowing them to wear this dress, than those who want to outright ban it. I'd let a teacher wear a niquab. I'd let a doctor wear one, as long as they were willing to wash their hands. Not sure why you thought I wouldn't?

As for " have I spoken to these women " ?? YES and many of them say as you state that it gives them " more freedom " BUT those that I have met that ( for instance ) came to college on the understanding that they wore full hijab were for the most part more that happy to rid themselves of it as soon as they were away from the influence or fear of what the men in the family would say or do if they uncovered their faces.

A few hundred years ago wonem here in the UK were not allowed to go to work other than as domestic servants or teachers ( who were often little more than domestic servants with education ) .. a woman doctor was considered an abomination, women were not allowed to have their own bank accounts, women were not allowed to show so much as an ankle without being accused of immorality .....MY great great grandmothers faught hard for the right to equality even though some who were not being ill treated objected to this ..if they ahd listened to the ones that were very content to be a mans vassil then you and I would not have the freedoms we do now.

I understand. There are islamic women who feel oppressed by their dress, but also some who feel liberated by it. I just want both sets of rights to be protected.

I DO understand where you are coming from , I DO understand that you see this as the thin edge of the wedge against all religeons BUT I see it more along the lines of equality .... here at least muslims demand and generally get far more freedom than those of us that are Christians and that included the rights to dress / wear " ornamental " weapons / have more than one wife / do as they like in any country they move to whilst defending their own country in denying equality or freedom for those who live or work in their homeland

I guess its hard to comment on this, because living in a different culture, I am barely exposed to your 'islamic culture' aspect at all (hope that makes sense). All I can say is that assimilation is not as much of a deal here, as it is there.

Arthur Durnan Replies -

What's so great about women being prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. The burka is not a religious sign at all; it's a mark of total subservience in the name of a false philosophy headed by polygamist Warlord Muhammad & his Islam, the greatest & most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty & truth known to our globe. Wht's so wonderful about genocide, misogyny, mass-homicide bombings of civilians & the beheading of captives? Salaam Alaikum indeed!