Talking about Green Day with a cool chick in a niqab

Dan says:

07:04am | 31/05/10

There are exceptions. People can be nude in certain places, and it is still legal to wear the burqa in mainstream society.

You mention Iran, but freedom of choise IS a custom here, and considering that a woman’s wearing the burqa does not harm you, maybe you should just accept it instead of crying ‘if you don’t like it here you can leave!’

Joan says:

07:41am | 31/05/10

Open face, face to face for Australia. - democratic right to see who you are talking to, and just curtesy to show your face to the person you are speaking with.  What is there to admire about a person chosing to cover face during interaction with other.? What is scarey about revealing your face to public? Is the person playing a faceless game similar to internet relationships- ie you never really know the person until you meet, see them face to face.  Of course for Alistair at a party drinking booze and rocking the nicqab wearing peeking , flirting eyes - the mystery woman - may be alluring-  like an unopened birthday gift.  But what you wear to an alcohol imbibing fancy dress party is different to day to day daily wear- keep the burqa for party use or home wear - that`s where it belongs .

Lachlan says:

09:17am | 31/05/10

The way I dress is not acceptable by mainstream Australian Society, it is still however legal. Unless dress style is presenting clear danger then the mainstream should have no say in how I want to express myself.

Peter says:

09:41am | 31/05/10

Should we allow freedom of choice for those who wish to destory freedom of choice for others.

Don’t wear a headscarf in Iran or Saudi Arabia?  Get beaten up by the Morals Police.

DaveC says:

11:41am | 31/05/10

So Peter you’re saying we should deplore a country that removes freedom of choice by removing freedom of choice in our own?

Stephen Fitzpatrick says:

11:57am | 31/05/10

Eric, your comment that people who would allow headscarfs should move to Iran is disingenuous, surely the more logical solution is for you to move to France. As an added bonus you could travel to Switzerland on the weekends to enjoy their ban on minarets. 

But perhaps we can negotiate. I will accept the banning of headscarfs if in turn we can ban all reality TV and Home & Away. Actually a better idea, all Australians will write down their top five things that offend them. Anything that 75% of Australians agree on, will be banned. Too bad if it’s something you enjoy hey Eric?

Steely Dan says:

01:43pm | 31/05/10

@ Eric

“At the other extreme, full-face masking is also unacceptable.”
It is?  Saying there’s a time and a place for nudity and playing fashion police are completely different.  Are leg warmers unacceptable too?

Granted, there are definitely situations where for identification purposes burqas and niqabs may need to be removed.  And I also believe that most head coverings have been and will continue to be implements of opression, both actively (forcing women to wear it) and passively (‘progressive’ women choosing to wear it because its a cultural norm).
But I can’t get behind banning it.  Just like I wouldn’t advocate banning women from working in strip clubs, even though I’m convinced it perpetuates a culture that demeans women.  If a woman is happy to take off her clothes to make money, it’s her body and it’s her right.

Same thing with the burqa and niqab.  If we have reason to believe that someone’s been forced into obedience to a religion’s dogma, that’s when the state can intervene.  But if it’s her choice, it’s her choice.

Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

06:16pm | 31/05/10

Eric when your ancestors came to Oz the local tradition was to be naked to the waist & just wear a loin covering, so why did they fly in the face of convention & walk around so overdressed. Obviously the aboriginal people were a lot more open minded than you obviously are.

BTS says:

07:32am | 31/05/10

LOL,

Props to The Punch for collecting an eclectic bunch of bloggers.

Dan says:

07:41am | 31/05/10

But which laws does this practise contradict? It doesn’t. Furthermore, if banks decide to ban people from covering their faces, it’s up to them, not the government. As it is, I don’t think that any banks have banned the burqa or niqab. And as for being polite, well, whether or not that’s true, that is not a reason to ban/mandate something.

acker says:

09:00am | 31/05/10

Well said JJJ and if people want to migrate to a wealthy nation where wearing the burqa has widespread community approval, Saudi Arabia should be considered.

joe says:

10:04am | 31/05/10

Seeing as the heads of all major banks have no apparent issue with a niqab in a bank, I don’t think you’re in any position to comment, especially if you are saying they’re breaking any rules.

Jon says:

11:31am | 31/05/10

Dan@ I think it’s against the law of commonsense. However usually many of your fellow apologist of these dubious religious/cultural practices can fall into the following groups:

1.People playing for their religious team and no amount for rational/logical debate can ever move them. Their coach is everything.

2.All of the other religious teams in the game of religion, despite centuries of being killed and killing the other team. Love the game.

3.Well meaning liberals and the urban lefties who want feel good about themselves by saying its OK to play the game, but never take part in the game.

4.And those who say they have the up most respect one for the teams because they are scared of them.

Dan says:

01:25pm | 31/05/10

Jon, LOL, you’re such a fool. I support freedom of choice and I’m an apologist?

I fall into the followinh category; someone who understands and accepts that freedom of choice and freedom of religion is a western liberal concept.

You, on the other hand, falls into the following category; a fascist who is no better than those who want to mandate certain clothing!

Stephen Fitzpatrick says:

12:13pm | 31/05/10

Right and catholics don’t eat meat on Friday or have sex before marrige and Jewish people never eat pork. Are these also like being half pregnant or are you just naive?

Helen says:

11:51am | 31/05/10

Karen, bear in mind that in this country in 1950 women represented less that 20% of enrollment in university. Today women represent 55% of enrollment. That did not happen by chance, but as a result of a long struggle by feminists to achieve some sort of gender equality in education.

I think that you are extremely naive to believe that the niqab is a value free symbol that you can dismiss with a cheerful welcome. In fact it screams loud and clear gender discrimination that is a threat to the progress we’ve made. For that reason it should be challenged relentlessly.

James1 says:

10:38am | 31/05/10

Yes there is, Lady Fong.  The crucial difference between an authoritarian theocracy (which bans modes of dress) and a liberal democracy (which doesn’t) is that a liberal democracy is not an authoritarian theocracy.  Some people seem to have a lot of trouble understanding the liberal democratic basis of our society, and how this differs to a theocratic dictatorship.

If you want to live in a country that tell women how to dress, you are more than welcome to leave.

Lady Fong says:

11:15am | 31/05/10

James1, excuse me? I think you totally missed my point. Plz read my posts again. No, I don’t want to live in a country that wants to tell women or anybody else, for that matter, how to dress. The Muslims want to tell us how to dress but they won’t give us the same privilege of asking them to take off the niqab and the burqa. James1, I think my moniker,  Lady Fong, is distracting your reasoning ability. I have no difficulty understanding the liberal democratic basis of Australia. I applaud it.  Asking me to leave the country is an automatic reaction and not part of a rational discussion.

Dick says:

11:25am | 31/05/10

James 1,these women are not exercising a genuine choice. Their behaviour is driven by a survival psychological mechanism by which they attempt to avoid punishment by internalizing the values of their oppressor,  the Islamist culture.

Sheedy's Left Foot says:

11:36am | 31/05/10

Err yes they are. Having lived in numerous Gulf states I can confirm women are allowed to wear bikinis, however there are restrictions on where they can be worn so as not to offend the sensibilities of people. You can wear them on the beach, at a pool etc etc, you would not wear then in the Suq nor would you in most situations away from their appropriate setting.

Most Muslims in the gulf states are open, tolerant and friendly people providing you treat them and their beliefs with the respect that they deserve.

James1 says:

11:45am | 31/05/10

It is the fact that you see a need to tell women to take off their niqab or burka that leads me to think you do not fully comprehend the difference between liberal democracy and authoritarian theocracy Lady Fong.  I hadn’t noticed your name - race, origin, religion, all that stuff is irrelevant to me.

Last I checked, no Muslim was trying to enact any law that states one must cover their face in Australia.  On the other hand, you seem to be arguing for a law which mandates that women must not cover their face.  In this circumstance, it is you who is being oppressive.  The fact that many Muslim countries mandate a particular mode of dress is neither here nor there - we do not live in an oppressive Muslim theocracy, but a Western liberal democracy, where such proscriptions on freedom of cultural attire are anathema, or at least I thought they were.  I guess I just have a deeper appreciation for our political system.

Dan, are you proposing that to allow some women a choice, we oppress all women?  That is what the law would do - take that choice away from all of us.

Steely Dan says:

02:06pm | 31/05/10

@ Lady Fong
“Why then do Muslim women demand that they be allowed to wear the niqab or the burqa?”
Despite your protests, you clearly do not understand what a liberal democracy is.  Banning a Muslim from wearing something in Australia in retaliation to another group of Muslims in another country banning bikinis is not equality.  Its being just as bad as the Muslim theocracy.  If you have a problem with Iran’s laws, take up your issue with Iran.  Don’t take it out on Iranian-Australians. 

Q: Should we start taking black Zimbabwean immigrants’ private property from them given that Mugabe is dispossessing white Zimbabweans?
A: No. Why? Because we shouldn’t be racist nut-jobs.

“Is there fairness and equality of treatment in that?”
There isn’t fairness and equality in banning clothing.  Banning burqas here doesn’t redress some cosmic balance.  It’s just another exercise of restricting freedom.

joe says:

02:59pm | 31/05/10

Here Here, James1, I am yet to find anybody on this thread speaking with the same commonsense you do! It’s funny how people do not fully understand the meaning of a liberal democracy, and use this very notion to justify a niqab ban. The fact that Fong is comparing Australia, with a Middle Eastern country undermines the credibility of her argument from the get go.

“If you want to live in a country that tell women how to dress, you are more than welcome to leave.”

There are so many things wrong with that sentence. Do you not realise that, should the government start legislating on religious dress, we would become exactly that, i.e. a country that ‘tells women how to dress’. We would become like the ‘Middle Eastern’ countries you so disparagingly refer to.

“No, I don’t want to live in a country that wants to tell women or anybody else, for that matter, how to dress. The Muslims want to tell us how to dress but they won’t give us the same privilege of asking them to take off the niqab”

One word: HYPOCRITICAL.

And you said to James1 asking you to leave the country was an overreaction and irrational, when you said the exact same thing in your previous post!

If there’s one thing I hate more than ignorant people, it’s ignorant people who think they are knowledgeable.

Muttley says:

04:17pm | 31/05/10

Well said Joe. How dare someone offer an opinion without being able to construct a 10,000 thesis on the issue. Well spotted.

joe says:

02:51pm | 31/05/10

I just love grammar and punctuation, don’t you?

Lauryn says:

02:50pm | 21/06/10

Well, Spaghetti Godess - I must be really brave - I’m an ordinary Aussie, and I go to Lakemba quite regularly (I live just a couple of suburbs away), and I show my “god given hair”. Yet, amazingly… I’ve never had any problems with the miriad of males that follow their “holey book and male written hadiths”. In fact… these males that you speak of are chatty and pleasant. There’s a great community feeling in being able to go to the local corner store and address these males and their niqab clad wives by first name and talk about our weekends. Funny… these so called oppressive men and their downtrodden wives are more tolerant than most of the “scared to go to Lakemba” Aussies.

Steely Dan says:

02:09pm | 31/05/10

@ Ric of Perth

” you have the right to speak… but I don’t have to believe everything you have to say!!!”
True.  You also have the right to give reasons to disbelieve it.  Would you like to exercise that right?

James1 says:

10:57am | 31/05/10

Maybe that is how they do things in your parents’ country, but here we do not ban a type of clothing simply because they force it on people in authoritarian theocracies.  Telling women how to dress is the first step towards what DG is talking about.  A step I for one would like to avoid.

DaveC says:

11:37am | 31/05/10

Hear hear Angela! That’s exactly what the Aborigines said when we got here. And my how we assimilated so peacefully with their ways and customs.

Markus says:

01:52pm | 31/05/10

James1 we do actually.
Try walking through public in a Nazi uniform and see how far you get before a police officer tells you to take it off.

That aside, in the case of a few I have seen, and in this ‘cool chick’ case as well, the niqab is an intentional non-conformist statement in the same way that goth or metal attire is.
Fair enough that wearing the burqa should not violate any law, but if you are going out of your way to wear something in public that offends or annoys the majority of people, don’t cry foul when you get ridiculed for it in the same way goths and emos are.

Jon says:

03:25pm | 31/05/10

James1@ Karl Popper said, unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. This is the Paradox of Tolerance.

Theocracies by their construction are intolerant to any society than they deem to not to follow their dogma.

Popper said, we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

James1 says:

04:45pm | 31/05/10

Jon, I do not argue for tolerance.  I argue from the standpoint of liberty.  Regimes like those of the Middle East which tell women how to dress are fundamentally illiberal.  I think this is a direction we should avoid.  The first step in the direction Popper was talking about would be to ban a mode of cultural attire in the name of “tolerance”.  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither.

Markus, by all means, criticise, ridicule, whatever.  That is part of the basis of a healthy, vibrant liberal democracy.  Where is crosses the line is when people say that we should place pointless restrictions of the way women dress because they do the same thing in fundamentally illiberal, and anti-democratic, states.

Dan says:

05:25pm | 31/05/10

Angela, Australia is not those countries. We are a liberal democracy and it does not matter what those those countries do. James1 is right when he says ” Where is crosses the line is when people say that we should place pointless restrictions of the way women dress because they do the same thing in fundamentally illiberal, and anti-democratic, states.” It’s like saying that vecause America executes people, so should we.

Oh, and Angela, it is not just your country, it is also mine, and it also that of Muslim women who wish to cover up. Simply because you don’t like it, or it offends you (has it occured to you that they are covering up because of modesty not because they have something to hide?) is irrelevent. People have the right to do things in OUR country which you don’t like.  Afterall, as I said, it is not just your country, not now, not ever.

Terry says:

05:34pm | 31/05/10

I can see at the entrance of Sydney harbour a giant statute of James1 holding high in one hand the flame of liberty and a burqa in the other .

Dan says:

05:49pm | 31/05/10

Terry, not to speak for James1, but why is that so inconsistent? If you believe in liberty, then believing in the freedom to wear whatever you choose to is consistent with that.

Jon says:

08:34am | 01/06/10

James1@Dan@ you both sound like the same person or maybe its your group think.

Go on! Go to the next stage and start apologizing for Sharia law using the same sophist arguments that is good for our liberal democracy, cultural diversity and tolerance.

James1 says:

11:45am | 01/06/10

That is a false equivalence Jon, and you know it.  If you do not know this, then you have shown that it is not worth arguing with you.

If you are so against women’s freedom, why not go the next step and start intruding further into the lives of women, and proscribe other types of dress.  Then we can start rounding up anyone who dresses differently, and put them into camps where we can teach them how to dress “Australian”.  Then, we can cancel elections, because we have already forgotten the basis of the political system that we live under…

Jon says:

02:04pm | 01/06/10

James1@ I beg to differ, the burqa is a manifestation from the same religious disorder. So do you support Sharia law?

Dan says:

04:31pm | 01/06/10

Jon, give me a break. Not only do you have NO idea what sharia law is, but nobody is suggesting that we introduce the extreme aspects. All we are suggesting is that we allow religious freedom and freedom of dress. You do know what that means don’t you? If you care at all about ‘liberal democracy, cultural diversity and tolerance’ (and I bet that you don’t), then you can’t support banning the burqa. But then, I don’t think you support these things.

Oh, and BTW, considering that moderate Muslims also wear the burqa, to talk about a religious disorder is not only incredibly bigoted but extraordinarily ignorant!

James1 says:

05:10pm | 01/06/10

No, I do not support Sharia law.  But no one is talking about Sharia law (except you), we are talking about banning an item of clothing.  The two issues are not equivalent.  They may stem from the same cultural/religious tradition, but they are not the same thing.  Furthermore, there is no need to ban Sharia law because currently it does not exist in this country.  Thus, by not supporting Sharia law, I am also not arguing that we remove fundamental liberties, I am merely supporting the status quo, which I believe strikes a nice balance between liberty, liberal democratic rule of law, and secularism.  By supporting a ban on the burka, you are in support of the removal of fundamental liberties.

Not very strong on abstract thought, or liberal democratic principles and their application in a free society, are you Jon?

Jon says:

09:05pm | 01/06/10

Jame1@Dan@ You sound lot more interested in defending a dubious religious practice than liberal democracy or cultural diversity and tolerance which all have limits.

I know what Sharia Law is from living under it for 2 years.

The very brave Maryam Namazie rights activist, commentator, broadcaster and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain is fighting against the burqa and Sharia Law as one and the same. The burqa is the thin edge of Sharia wedge.

As Karl Popper said unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them.

I reserve the right to have any tolerance for inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or culture.

Dan says:

01:55am | 02/06/10

Jon;

“You sound lot more interested in defending a dubious religious practice than liberal democracy or cultural diversity and tolerance which all have limits.”

Nonsence. Firstly, whether the burqa is ‘dubious’ is subjective. Secondly, simply because something is ‘dubious’ does not mean it should be banned. There are plenty of things which may be ‘dubious.’ Banning such things goes against the whole point of liberal democtracy, cultural diversity and tolerance. In fact, it is not us who is failing to defend liberal democtracy, cultural diversity and tolerance. It is you.

Furthermore, who sets the limits? You?

‘I know what Sharia Law is from living under it for 2 years.’

Good for you. However that does not change the fact that the only person who brought it up is you. Supporting the right to wear the burqa does not mean that one supports the extreme aspects of Sharia.

‘The very brave Maryam Namazie rights activist, commentator, broadcaster and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain is fighting against the burqa and Sharia Law as one and the same. The burqa is the thin edge of Sharia wedge.’

Many would disagree with that. 

‘As Karl Popper said unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them.’

How do you know that those who wear the burqa are automatically intolerant? And if it is banned for that reason, can we ban those who attack Islam and Muslims? Can we ban the anti-semites? Or should we only ban those who fit your definition of intolerance and not those who are intolerant towards groups you yourself are intolerant to?

‘I reserve the right to have any tolerance for inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or culture.’

Nobody said that you don’t have that right, just as I have a right not to have tolerance for you and your views. That does not mean, however, that you have the right to ban the burqa. This is a liberal democracy, and simply because you don’t tolerate something does not mean it should be banned.

Jon says:

11:01am | 02/06/10

Dan@ Regarding Maryam Namazie, many do agree and some secular Muslims also. The great Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the creator of the modern Turkish secular state agreed. He was responsible for banning Muslim girls and women wearing the hijab from attending school or university. The Wabbhists and the Taliban think it’s part of Sharia law.

So if we change perspective and look at Sharia law, what it does it do? It bans people and practically woman from wearing clothing outside the home that does not conform to Sharia law. So are we banning something that is already a ban? There are already bans in many Islamic countries for the right to criticise Islam. So as a sign of torrance for a cultural practice, do we therefore ban criticism Islam? Which is effectively a ban on free speech in Western Secular country.

How do you know that those who wear the burqa are automatically intolerant? Well we don’t! because this ban also bans me and her from having contact with each other. So it’s a bit of a Catch 22. There seems to be a whole lot ban to me.

Many Australians see the burqa as symbol of Islamic extremism despite you’re assurances.

So do you support the introduction Sharia law into Australia?

Dan says:

11:29am | 02/06/10

Jon, ‘Regarding Maryam Namazie, many do agree and some secular Muslims also. The great Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the creator of the modern Turkish secular state agreed. He was responsible for banning Muslim girls and women wearing the hijab from attending school or university.’ And you think that’s justified? Banning people from wearing religious clothing in public? That is just as bad as mandating it. Ataturk was just as intolerant as those who wish to mandate it, and to make matters worst, there have regularly been coups whenever democratically elected governments have threatened Turkey’s ‘secular nature.’ The fact that you support the banning of the hijab and burqa in public, yet oppose the mandating of it, is completely hypocritical. That you support banning hijab-weaing girls from attending schools and university indicates to me that you couldn’t care less about women’s rights.

’ The Wabbhists and the Taliban think it’s part of Sharia law.’

So, we will do exactly what they do, just the reverse? How enlighened of us.

‘So if we change perspective and look at Sharia law, what it does it do? It bans people and practically woman from wearing clothing outside the home that does not conform to Sharia law. So are we banning something that is already a ban?’ This isn’t clear. Are you saying that because Sharia law bans something, so should we? That is absurd.

‘There are already bans in many Islamic countries for the right to criticise Islam. So as a sign of torrance for a cultural practice, do we therefore ban criticism Islam? Which is effectively a ban on free speech in Western Secular country.’ I brought up the banning of attacking Islam because you say that we shouldn’t tolerate the intolerant. It seems that you only care about intolerance, as long as it doesn’t cover a group you are intolerant of. You are such a hypocrite, it’s incredible.

Yes, we have freedom of speech, but we also have freedom of choice and freedom of religion, and simply because you don’t like the burqa does not give you the right to ban it.

Dan says:

11:38am | 02/06/10

Jon,  ’ How do you know that those who wear the burqa are automatically intolerant? Well we don’t! because this ban also bans me and her from having contact with each other. So it’s a bit of a Catch 22. There seems to be a whole lot ban to me.’ So what? Maybe she doesn’t want to have contact with you. You can’t force someone to have contact with you if they don’t want to.

’ Many Australians see the burqa as symbol of Islamic extremism despite you’re assurances.’ Many Australians voted for One Nation. Whether ‘many Australians’ see burqa as symbol of Islamic extremism is irrelevent. There is NO objective meaning, it’s an article of clothing, and banning it is NO different to mandating it.

‘So do you support the introduction Sharia law into Australia’

[rest of comment removed for juvenile name-calling - mods]

Jon says:

05:07pm | 02/06/10

Jame1@Dan I glad to see that at least one of you doesn’t support Sharia Law. You would like to quarantine the burqa from Sharia Law. But the burqa is a manifestation of Sharia Law.

The burqa is the thin edge of Sharia wedge. It’s not an objective of no meaning. From my reading the wearing of it is enforced violently by the Taliban the Wabbhists and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards of Iran. They certainly identify it as part of their Sharia Law and as a religious symbol that has lots meaning.

Sharia Law, by its construction is a fundamentalist religious dogma, and by its nature is intolerant to liberal secular democracy. It would seek to overturn a liberal secular democracy laws and impose its own religious dogma. Not to mention contravening universal human rights.

This is what Karl Popper meant, if we tolerant the intolerant (Sharia Law) it must lead to the disappearance of tolerance (liberal secular democracy) with it. It’s a Paradox!

Dan says:

09:50pm | 02/06/10

Jon says: “Jame1@Dan I glad to see that at least one of you doesn’t support Sharia Law.” Give me a break! You do realise that the only person who brought up Sharia is you? So perhaps neither of us support it?!

I will ask you this. Do you support liberal democracy?

“You would like to quarantine the burqa from Sharia Law. But the burqa is a manifestation of Sharia Law.” Yes, probably, but Sharia Law isn’t simply stoning adulterers. It also covers dress code, financial matters, dietry requirements etc… Suggesting that it is a manifestation of Sharia Law is simplistic as you can’t lump halal slaughtering in with criminal law.

” The burqa is the thin edge of Sharia wedge.” The burqa would be a product of Sharia. To call it a thin edge is absurd. Simply because we allow Islamic banking does not mean we will introduce Sharia criminal law, and the same thing for the burqa.

” It’s not an objective of no meaning.” It has multiple meanings, that’s the point.

” From my reading the wearing of it is enforced violently by the Taliban the Wabbhists and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards of Iran. They certainly identify it as part of their Sharia Law and as a religious symbol that has lots meaning.” Perhaps, but simply because they do something, doesn’t mean we should do the reverse. And if we do the reverse, ban the burqa, that is no different to mandating it.

However, really, what Iran and Saudi Arabia do is irrelevent. We can’t base what we do on what they do.

“Sharia Law, by its construction is a fundamentalist religious dogma, and by its nature is intolerant to liberal secular democracy. It would seek to overturn a liberal secular democracy laws and impose its own religious dogma. Not to mention contravening universal human rights.”

I don’t think you understand what Sharia is. Sharia is simply Islamic law, and all Muslims follow aspects of it, as it covers pretty much everything that Muslims do in their daily life. Criminal law is only a small part of it.

That said, if we are only talking about criminal law, then I fully agree with you. However nobody is suggesting that we implement its criminal code.

“This is what Karl Popper meant, if we tolerant the intolerant (Sharia Law) it must lead to the disappearance of tolerance (liberal secular democracy) with it. It’s a Paradox!”

There are three problems with this. One, as I mentioned, Sharia covers more than criminal law. Two, the burqa has multiple meanings and is a piece of clothing. Three, simply because we allow the burqa does not mean that we will allow Sharia criminal punishments to be implemented. Nobody is suggesting that.

Casey says:

01:11pm | 01/06/10

I agree, I find the muffin top more offensive than the niqab/burqa.

Excellent articule, reminds me of an Islamic girl I went to high school with who wore a hijab and was more rebellious than any other girl I knew. Not everyone conforms to what people think; and I’m a teetotaler, employed Aboriginal girl.

Kermit says:

10:55am | 31/05/10

dude, he was talking about Iraq not Iran!

James1 says:

10:55am | 31/05/10

He was talking about Iraq.  It is usually best to read articles before replying.

bella starkey says:

11:29am | 31/05/10

It probably was considering he is talking about iraq not iran

CP says:

11:50am | 31/05/10

Isn’t it common for places to have different kinds of visa’s for business travellers? At the very least I can think of a few that do,  China, India, Thailand, Malaysia and probably England just to start.

Kordez says:

11:24am | 31/05/10

@Jen, in 1888 there was this wonderful invention called a drinking straw, if your lucky and know what they look like you may be able to buy them still.

timbo says:

12:41pm | 31/05/10

I think this comment hits close to the probable “truth” of the matter. These “decisions”/“choices” - is it really a totally “free” choice or is like “we give you the things to choose from” - like the jewel/potates thing mentioned above.

I’ve not heard an account from a woman who chooses to wear this clothing as to the significance of wearing it, and even the original REASON for it. Exactly what purpose does it serve? We’ve only heard from one side of the discussion - those women who have “broken free” (so to speak) and, in most cases, have left their upbringing behind to do so.

People keep saying that there is apprently no religious documentation to justify it so whats the actual reason??

Steely Dan says:

02:24pm | 31/05/10

“would the banning of the burqa/ veil/ niqab have made my life easier? NO WAY. if there had been a ban i would have never been able to go to school or even leave the house.”
This is yet another reason why a ban is ludicrous.  Thanks for sharing your experience with the issue, Y.

ThisIsRidiculous says:

02:36pm | 31/05/10

Religious garment or not, it shouldn’t comprimise society’s safety.

Seeing as nobody can be identified under a burqa, then it should be banned, atleast in areas where security is of upmost importance (banks, airports, etc). If women are willing to remove the garment in those areas and for other reasonable security reasons, then I don’t see a problem with it…

But don’t think that your right to uphold religion trumps everyone elses right to a safe and secure society…

fred says:

03:54pm | 31/05/10

Wow, what an insightful and interesting read. Yet I would have to point out, emphatically, that this is all cultural stuff, and not Islamic. May God guide that scripture volunteer that told you those things, but I can tell you they were, without a doubt, mistaken. Khadija was the Prophet Muhammad’s first wife, and first convert to Islam. She was a massively successful businesswoman and immensely wealthy. She met the Prophet Muhammad in the course of her business, and remained in this line of work. Indeed, she comforted him when he was down, and believed him when others doubted. She is regarded as one of the “mothers of the believers” and is an exemplar to Muslim women everywhere. So it would be absolutely wrong to say, Islamically, women are forbidden to hold high positions or decision making positions. If being a businesswoman is not one of the utmost examples of a decision making position, then I certainly don’t know what is.

Zaf says:

04:05pm | 31/05/10

Hey Y, a really interesting life story.  Good luck to you in your endeavours, you’re certainly brave to have taken the steps you did.  Two things you said really seemed to encapsulate the whole discussion of the veil:

[would the banning of the burqa/ veil/ niqab have made my life easier? NO WAY.]

And

[as Australians, are we that insecure about our national identity we need to legislate a ban?? Why don’t we debate a bigger issue that actually affects most of us?]

Regards

Y says:

05:21pm | 31/05/10

cheers guys.
Issues like this always have many sides, but in my opinion the view of those who make the decision to NOT participate in these practices is heavily underrepresented.
@fred; totally, that scripture teacher was very mislead and you’re right; according to all scriptures and writing, choice and personal interpretation is always stressed in Islam. Though i am now an active atheist, i wholeheartedly support the argument that Islam is often misrepresented.

JH says:

09:03pm | 04/07/10

Well, Mato mate

You’ve got that one wrong. Being a young muslim business woman myself, I can tell you that’s one of the greatest misconceptions around. My husband didn’t have a say in me wearing the hijab, as don’t many other women’s husband. Tomorrow, if God so wills, I plan to start wearing the niqab. He doesn’t want me to, but I do.
It’s 100% MY CHOICE!
It is what I feel to be right. My mother and sister don’t wear it. They don’t want me to wear it either but I want to.
Oh and I just remembered, I’m not oppressed either. Yes, that’s right I have more freedom than you would like to think. I am so free that I have no need for media to tell me what I should be wearing. You know, this is the fashion now and these are the in colours.
It’s not for them, it’s for me and what I know to be right.  I don’t care what others think. I only have to answer to God. Everyone came into this world alone and will leave alone. We are all accountable for our own deeds. That is, if you believe.

xyz says:

01:36pm | 07/07/10

JH, you have decided to wear the niqab as a provocative statement to the broader Australian community in a knee-jerk reaction to this blog… how nice! The thing is… God did’t ask you to do it, so why are you doing it if it isn’t just to get a reaction!

JJJ says:

09:22pm | 31/05/10

Like Western Sydney.

James1 says:

01:42pm | 31/05/10

Does it need to be a social norm to be accepted though?  Plenty of other things happen that I do not consider to be a social norm, yet I accept them.

Also, in Iran they wear the hijab.  Burkas are from Afghanistan.

BennO says:

02:48pm | 01/06/10

“Anyone who wants to wear the burqa should like in places such as Iran…”

Excellent.  Our country is so “progressive” and that if you want to wear something different from the majority you aren’t welcome.  Did the definition of progressive change in the last week or something?

“This is not Iran” 

That’s right because Iran is a place where they legislate a required form of dress which is wrong!  We would never do that here- oh wait…hang on…that’s…exactly what you’re suggesting.  I’m sorry, how did you get to that Giss?

Zaf says:

04:53pm | 31/05/10

Gotta respect people’s right to be stupid, so long as it doesn’t impinge on your personal space/hip pocket.  That’s democracy.

Dan says:

05:13pm | 31/05/10

The issue is not what you think of the burqa (and not everyone regards it as a tent),  but rather whether women should have the right to wear what they please, without the government dictating it.

Tory, if you wish to live in a country in which the government bans clothing (and if you don’t, I apologise), then what is the difference between that and a country which mandates it or bans women from wearing other clothing like jeans?

Dan says:

06:01pm | 31/05/10

Fair enough Tory. That is really my point. While people may have completely negative views on the burqa (and I personally don’t), that does not mean it should be banned.

Eric says:

05:57pm | 31/05/10

Ho hum, another ignorant person who can’t understand the real issues, so accuses others of “racism”.

Protip: Islam is not a race. It’s a religion.

Lana says:

11:02pm | 31/05/10

Being a Muslim myself I didn’t realise this was actually a religion… Thanks for that amazing clarification. And thanks for reminding me of my ignorance because I choose to overlook racism rather than pander to it. Tell me Eric, what are the real issues? Please enlighten me with your wisdom.

Eric says:

05:47am | 02/06/10

Lana, your comment about “racism” proves that you didn’t know Islam was a religion. Now you know. I’m glad I could help.

Lana says:

10:44am | 04/06/10

Oh I get it, comedy. No wait, is that irony… no wait, is it sarcasm? Oh I give up… I don’t have a clue what you’re on about now! But thanks for making me chuckle.

iansand says:

04:09pm | 31/05/10

Saddam was a secular leader.  His deputy was a Christian.  The religious nutters probably have more influence in Iraq now than they did under Saddam.

Zaf says:

04:18pm | 31/05/10

Actually, Stephen, women’s rights have gone backwards in Iraq after Saddam was deposed.  He was a brutal dictator, but a brutal dictator who didn’t enforce religious dress codes on women, or empower religious extremists (of the kind who’ve been voted into power in parts of the country today).  In many ways urban Iraqi women were more free under Saddam than they are now.  That’s irony for you.

JJJ says:

09:26pm | 31/05/10

If you try and ban my crocs, I will kick you while wearing them. I haven’t heard of “jeggings”, but if I find some, I shall buy a pair and wear them so you get annoyed.

Eric says:

05:55pm | 31/05/10

Iansand, you assume too much.

My opposition to the burqa has nothing to do with feminism, and everything to do with opposition to radical Islamism.

I consider both equally threatening to liberal society.

Y says:

05:55pm | 31/05/10

every day i slap on a significant layer of cosmetics to cover my face. In fact, it has been commented i look completely different person from my id shots. sometimes i use my fringe in a side weep to cover my face. I’ve had hour long conversation in john Lennon type sunnies that hinder my ability to smile. i have never done these things with the intention of causing offence, and i can imagine anyone else who chooses to cover their face has not got secret desires to insult the people around them. props for making an effort to articulate your thought/s. bit of a fail though.

Charles Kelly says:

06:33pm | 31/05/10

Well Y, any intelligent person knows that neither sunglasses nor makeup hides a person’s entire face - so one need not look further than your deeply flawed comparison for a “bit of a fail”. Try again.

Adam says:

09:05pm | 31/05/10

I absolutely agree Charles

JJJ says:

09:32pm | 31/05/10

I tent to agree with Charles. I feel that it’s a shame that these women do not want me to see who they are. Y - makeup and sunnies etc are a whole different ballgame, just like wigs and plastic surgery. These, along with the way we dress, are donned because we want people to judge us to be a certain person. People who wear the niqab and body-long dress are shapeless and the ONLY way to judge them is “islamic woman”... which has a lot of connotations for different people. If that’s what you want to be, then that’s fine, but people will judge you according to their experiences - it’s what we humans do. I would rather have many elements of a person on which to assess them.

JJJ says:

09:33pm | 31/05/10

Whoever is newest and appears to be taking over. It’s the ultimate Australian fear (can you blame us?!).

Charles Kelly says:

09:01am | 01/06/10

Actually Robert Smissen, it’s the fact that many new Australians flatly refuse to “learn to live in harmony” with us that’s the problem. It’s unfortunate that your “wonderful Afghani boy” appears to be the exception, not the rule. When people move to Australia and willingly embrace their new country and culture, they are welcomed with open arms - but when people move to Australia and bring their conflicts, intolerance, crime and prejudice with them, the choive to not fit in is entirely theirs . JJJ has a valid point - it’s perfectly logical to be suspicious of anyone who “appears to be taking over”. You need to “get over” your own prejudice, and start to see the forest for the trees.

Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

11:33am | 01/06/10

Charlie Kelly (related to the murderous Ned perhaps? ? ) you missed the point these refugees don’t risk all to get away from one place of oppression to get to another place where they are treated badly, it is our treatment of them that often creates the problem that you fear. Xenophobic behaviours by some Australians will drive them into enclaves to be radicalised. Most of these people just want to live quiet lives which is why they came here in the first place. On your premise about looks, if a red headed person commited a crime, would we be right to fear & vilify ALL red heads. As for your claim that when people come to Oz & embrace our culture that is RUBBISH! ! ! As a Pommy immigrant growing up in the 50s I can tell you that is not true, if you don’t believe me, just ask any immigrant that came to Oz in the 50s & 60s.

Charles Kelly says:

12:41pm | 01/06/10

Once again Robert Smissen, your blinkered prejudice clouds your judgement and prevents you from presenting a rational argument. Your deluded disregard for the facts does you no favours. Perhaps if you were to cease putting words into people’s mouths and jumping to ill-informed conclusions you might just be taken seriously. Only perhaps.

Charles Kelly says:

12:53pm | 01/06/10

You need to take a good hard look in the mirror Robert Smissen. It appears your ignorant hypocrisy know no bounds. As you said, you were a “Pommy immigrant growing up in the 50s” - and yet after all this time your vitriolic rants show you STILL view the people who welcomed you into their wonderful country as “us and them”. You don’t consider yourself an Australian - you’ve made that perfectly clear. How sad.

Charles Kelly says:

09:42pm | 01/06/10

Yeah yeah Robert Smissen, we get it. All Australians are lazy, ignorant, inbred, xenophobic criminals - and you know this for a fact because as someone who has never really left the almighty mother country (you’ve made it perfectly clear you’re only here under protest), you’re superior in every way. Pathetic.

Eric says:

05:48am | 02/06/10

I can see one bigot in this thread - who hates Australians.

James1 says:

12:49pm | 02/06/10

When the majority starts to vote in way which impinge on the rights of minorities - especially when said rights do not affect the majority - it ceases to be a true liberal democracy and becomes a tyranny.  The tyranny of the majority.  If we voted to imprison everyone of a particular national origin, how would this sit with your conception of democracy?

Charles Kelly says:

02:43pm | 02/06/10

Huh? The majority already votes “in way which impinges on the rights of minorities”! Australia’s perpetually gullible lowest common denominator voted for Rudd didn’t they? Intelligent rational people were clearly in the minority when it came to voting in the last Federal election.

SmithPbuh says:

02:48pm | 02/06/10

James1, I will not entertain your question about imprisoning people of some national origin as this is not we are discussing here nor there is a support for such action amongst Australian society.

However, suggesting that wearing burqa/niqab/purdah ” does not affect the majority” is a false pretence. Equality, freedom, safety, security and “fair go” are essential Australian values, which burqa/niqab/purdah undermines. Are we tyrants because we do not accept nudity in the streets? Are we tyrants because we do not accept stoning, flogging and decapitation?

Dan says:

04:15pm | 02/06/10

Smithpbuh, we do accept nudity in certain places. As for stoning, flogging and decapitation, to compare those things to wearing the burqa is absurd. There is no comparison.

As for Equality, freedom, safety, security and “fair go”; if we ban it because it undemines equality, should we insist that the Catholic Church appoint female priests? Should we ban the nun’s habbit and the ultra-orthodox Jewish wig?

As for freedom, taking away someone’s freedom to wear what they like does not shout freedom to me.

Safety is completely silly, as is security (the reality is that should banks, for example, decide to ban it on security grounds, they will do so as private companies, and so it has nothing to do with the government.)

As for “fair go”, how is banning clothing (which is no different to mandating it) providing the “fair go”?

SmithPbuh says:

05:41pm | 02/06/10

Dan,
“fair go” - what chance does a woman in burqa has for employment? I know my customers would want a face to talk to not a bag with eyes.

safety - not silly at all. I do not want to be anywhere in 10km radius of any woman driving a can in burqa. many places of employment would also deem it unsafe. Would you let a woman in burqa on any apparatus in Luna Park?

security - you have no leg to stand on here. I need to be safe beyond banks, and I certainly do not want to rely that a bank (or any other private company) has a right security procedure (they obviously do not if they allow burqas but not helmets)

freedom - I thought I explained it in the article - we are not free to do anything already as that would be anarchy. We are free to do what we as society via government legalised to be OK. You are not free to smoke wherever, you are not free to drink wherever etc. Lots of restrictions like that already exist.

equality - I am not interested in institutional religious examples? I am talking about personal equality. You see me, I see you. Me being treated the same way as a woman in burqa and vice versa. That is not what is occurring now.