Forget the burqa, how about a ban on Cory Bernardi

Samson says:

08:38am | 27/05/10

It is a humorous little thought bubble, but seeing as it has absolutely nothing to do with American society or culture I think it’s unlikely to get a Pulitzer nomination.

I think it’s about time someone put foward legislation proposing a ban that tops all bans that came before it.  A ban on banning.

James1 says:

11:10am | 27/05/10

We should ban proposals like the one Samson makes.  Banning bans in unAustralian, not part of our culture, and should be banned.  I say we ban the banning of bans today.

Nitzpicker says:

03:44pm | 27/05/10

Im onboard, banning all calls to ban bans bans, however im also about equality, so i call on Collette Dinnigan to design us… the MAN BURQA, make it an Aussie Icon, The Driza-Bone Burqa,... for the comfort of you and your camel. *smirk*

Aziz says:

06:33am | 02/05/11

Great Article! Awesome! I really think you hit the nail on the head. I admire freedom of speech, but like many others in this great nation, I cant stand seeing people racially vilified. In this case his words offend me. As an Australian born Muslim, can I not be made to feel like an Australian? Or do people like Cory have to remind me and everyone else about our “differences”?.......... We should spend time reminding each other of our “similarities”, then we would love one another. Peace and God Bless Australia!

BTS says:

08:12am | 27/05/10

or freedom to wear whatever we want to wear…without being judged.

antiperspirant says:

08:23am | 27/05/10

Now what would be an example of this.

Ummmmm.

Oh you mean like an internet filter?

Steve M says:

11:32am | 27/05/10

yeah BTS, how dare we ask people to show their faces! That is just being unreasonable…..

BTS says:

11:57am | 27/05/10

Yeah Steve M,

How dare we demand to see everybody, next we will be wanting to know their business too.

notsurprised says:

12:38pm | 27/05/10

No BTS, expecting to see someones’ face on the street is entirely different from wanting to know someones’ business.

BTS says:

01:41pm | 27/05/10

notsurprised,

Expectation often leads to disappointment.

notsurprised says:

03:58pm | 27/05/10

?????

Jonathan says:

12:35pm | 27/05/10

Yes it is VERY obvious you don’t know him.  Maybe you should do a little more research before you start getting so opinionated?

Ras Putin says:

12:48pm | 27/05/10

Good one DDD,as a South Aust. i would like to see him gone..He is a red neck BB conservative of the old school!! The burqa issue is the only,and the last, time that i agree with him..——-Good article Paul.

Lauren says:

02:11pm | 31/05/10

@ Jonathon - how much research do you need to do to realise that Cory bernardi is a racist, capitalist, christian bigot?? Not much further than going to his home page:
My work is framed by a commitment to some essential principles that I believe can help build a better future. These principles are in many ways timeless - ones that generations have returned to, and will continue to return to, as the best way to run a nation. These include:

  * Recognising and supporting families as the most important unit of society
  * A commitment to personal and economic freedom - including lower taxation and smaller government
  * Supporting Judeo Christian values as the framework on which our nation has been established.

How do we solve a problem like Cory? Or rather, the problem of those who let him get any political swing

Tone says:

09:44am | 27/05/10

are you barefoot and ready to get in the kitchen, Amanda?

Dave says:

12:14pm | 27/05/10

Hi Tone, thanks for your comment. I like Cory and some of the things he says, but not all of them. I happen to think that if a person chooses to wear a garment that showcases their oppression, that’s cool, so I don’t think we should ban the burka.

Could you please direct me to a reference to Cory wanting wives/girlfriends to go barefoot into the kitchen? That would be some inconsistency in his views - on one hand he’d be seeking to release islamic women from the oppression of the burka, but on the other he’d be trying to get the rest into the kitchen without shoes on… You apper to have caught him out, all you need is the evidence!

Michael says:

04:18pm | 27/05/10

Dave, how naive to really believe Bernardi wants to ban the burka for the purpose of liberating women. Ever consider that he, like the rest of his faction, simply want to de-Islamise Australia?

Old Clive says:

09:08am | 27/05/10

You could be right!!!. A society where there is no booze, where adultresses are stoned to death, where female circumcision is practised, where thieves get their hands cut off, where there is no welfare or freedom of speech sounds a lot better than what we have to put with, doesn’t it.

John says:

01:52pm | 27/05/10

Old Clive@ Well said, I having lived in Saudi Arabia for two years. I can’t see how any rational person could justify such a fascist Islamic state.

James1 says:

02:05pm | 27/05/10

Old Clive and John,

Who is justifying that?  I must have missed the person who argued that Saudi Arabia is a good example.  Although, on a previous thread, I did see a lot of people saying that because the Saudis make women cover their faces, we should force them not to.  I will have to assume that is what you are talking about, and agree that it is a very bad idea to start down that particular path.

John says:

11:54am | 28/05/10

Jame1, where is a good example, The Islam country that I can give respect too is Turkey. Mostly thanks to the great Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, for the creation of a modern secular state. He was also responsible for banning Muslim girls and women wearing the hijab from attending school or university. He had balls!

John says:

11:54am | 28/05/10

Jame1, where is a good example, The Islam country that I can give respect too is Turkey. Mostly thanks to the great Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, for the creation of a modern secular state. He was also responsible for banning Muslim girls and women wearing the hijab from attending school or university. He had balls!

Stefan says:

09:15am | 27/05/10

Barrel - fish - gun.

Yas says:

09:46am | 27/05/10

well, yeah… only joking!
when i lived in the middle east and people were being racist towards WASPs in western countries, they used similar rhetoric to that used by people like Cori et al on issues like the burqa. i know it’s hard to imagine but on channels like al arabiya (saudi’s answer to fox news) they would show clips of kids on “so you think you can dance” auditioning and embarrassing themselves followed by a report on why such people should not be allowed to raise children or run for office. they use terms like “generally” “normally” “morally” “ethically” in grand sweeps to justify their distorted points!

tyu says:

09:56am | 27/05/10

Christian’s are actually required to defend their religion and fellow believer’s. The idea that Christian’s should stay silent in the face of persecution is a fallacy. I think this is starting to change now and over the next 10 years we’ll see a more peacefully ‘active’ Christianity in the West as progressives like Master Colgan continually attempt the to stir the bear from hibernation.

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:44am | 27/05/10

Christians can peacefully defend or be active about their religion all they like as long as they don’t attempt to impose their views on subjects like internet censorship, abortion and same sex marriage upon the secular population of Australia as they have been doing. I look forward to the accession of Tony Abbott as Prime Minister when we can fully acknowledge Australia as a Theocracy

iansand says:

11:06am | 27/05/10

tyu says:09:56am | 27/05/10

“Christian’s are actually required to defend their religion and fellow believer’s.”
Muslims are actually required to defend their religion and fellow believer’s. 

Welcome to the Crusades.  I thought society had moved on a tad since then.

chris says:

12:40pm | 27/05/10

tyu: quote me chapter and verse from the KJV Bible to support your opinion. I’m calling BS on that one.

Craigles says:

10:01am | 27/05/10

Cori has used the “Judeo-Christian framework” he espouses on his web-site to criticise a manifestation of another belief - pot/kettle.

I think the Imam’s comments about uncovered meat were widely and loudly criticised, and quite rightly, too.

James1 says:

01:23pm | 27/05/10

By all means criticise Andrew.  Banning things and criticising them are two different things though.  People criticise Christianity, but no one (who is taken seriously) is calling for a ban on it.  Bernardi did not just criticise Islam, he called for a cultural practice to be banned.

Chris L says:

06:47pm | 27/05/10

Andrew, I remember a lot of critical comment spoken against Hilali. This is the first time I’ve heard of Bernardi.

PS. I’ll draw Muhammed if I want to!

Nicole says:

10:36am | 27/05/10

Who cares about the bloody burqa! I’m dying to know if your Carlton jersey still fits and if you found a date last night Zeta?

Jim Peters says:

10:39am | 27/05/10

Well said.  Theres a reason these people are risking their lives in leaky boats to try to get away from those places. Why why bring that “way of life” here?

I was raised to respect women and to respect the equality of sexes. So dont ask me to respect a “way of life” that is the opposite of everything I’ve been raised to believe in, a “way of life” that forces women to hide themselves from the world behind medieval clothing.

bella starkey says:

11:52am | 27/05/10

imagine there’s no heaven, no hell below us, above us only sky…

Garth says:

12:00am | 28/05/10

“imagine there’s no heaven, no hell below us, above us only sky…”

too true, you’re living in it now, it’s called Australia… the land of the religion of atheistic humanism, a land doing it’s darnedest to remove God. Just think, no more morality or ethics (coz we can just make it up as we go along to suit, where everyone’s equal but some are more equal than others (read LGBT & multinationals) or less equal (1 million unborn babies). No God to shower His undeserved Grace upon me, no solid rule of Judeo-Christian law which defends the weak and the exploited, no Bible that teaches equality of all men, honouring of parents & women (not domination). That’s what John Lennon was singing about and ironically it was a man without faith in God, no conscience, no care for law, only hatred, that gunned him down.

Michael says:

06:06pm | 27/05/10

Keep it up Cory. You and Abbott are the ALP’s biggest assets at the moment.

Shirl in Sydney says:

02:14pm | 24/09/10

Exactly Andrew !! And the next post too.

Read Sally Morrell’s piece in the SMH

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/this-is-a-serious-cover-up/story-e6frfhqf-1225855178548?from=public_rss

Adolf Hitler says:

03:57pm | 27/05/10

Thirded

Adam Diver says:

07:28pm | 27/05/10

Paul, don’t take the fun out of it. You should be ashamed.

I propose a ban from comments by Paul as well

Chris L says:

06:50pm | 27/05/10

Ban Fr John Fleming!

James1 says:

01:27pm | 27/05/10

You do not write like an Australian.  That is culturally unAustralian, and I don’t want it in my country.  Please go back to LA on the first available flight.  I call for a ban on people writing like American rap “artists”.

Nathan says:

02:55pm | 27/05/10

The current constitution is good enough, we do not need a politically correct socialist version of the bill of rights.

SmithPbuh says:

04:39pm | 27/05/10

Nathan: “The Constitution consists mainly of provisions relating to the structure of the Commonwealth Parliament, executive government and the federal judicial system. There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. ” Roy Jordan, Parliamentary Library (http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm)

Dan says:

09:48pm | 27/05/10

Smith, you’re going to use a document proclaiming the freedom to practice religion and use it to ban some religions?  Quite aside from the fact that it’s self-contradictory, have you ever read a history book?  What happens when you ‘ban’ (read ‘oppress’) a religion or belief system?  Generally, the ban ‘proves’ that they’re ‘right’, those just in it for the coffee and cake depart leaving a hard core of committed followers.  Then that belief system spreads rapidly underground because the official ban gives it whole lot of street credibility.  Look at the explosive growth of Christianity in communist China over the past four decades, or the swell of sympathy for Al Quaeda in the West since 2001.  A Bill of Rights may be inevitable in Australia some time in the next 20 years, but seriously if you want a powerful idea to go away you’ve gotta play it reeeal nice and easy.

Garth says:

12:08am | 28/05/10

SmithPbuh: But it’s that very structure and system that has over this period ensured that this is a free country, with a focus on establishing and maintaining equality, the freedom to have one’s say, consideration for the weak and the defenceless etc. So why do we need to write specific rules which can be used to discriminate or used for base political ends when we have a system with checks and balances that has embedded the morality and ethics that is the basis of human rights and which the courts for a hundred years has been interpreting with reasonable fairness, for the good of the nation’s inhabitants.

There’s a lot of wisdom in not ‘fixing something that aint broke’

SmithPbuh says:

01:57pm | 28/05/10

Dan, my comment was a “tongue in a cheek” sentence. You would need to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights along with the scriptures of current dominant religions to understand it. All major religions of the day fail to comply with Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some on some points and some on ALL points. Sadly, out of 6+ billion people on this planet more than half will do “stuff” on behalf of an invisible and unprovable deity, than for benefit of mankind. The tolerance/intolerance we discuss here actually refers to the least tolerant systems known to men: religions, which brings age old philosophical question: should tolerant society tolerate the intolerant. My view on the subject aligns with philosopher John Rawls, who said: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger”. In modern age we have two very recent examples were the tolerant society decided not to tolerate the intolerant: nazism was first, shortly followed by communism as they reached and proved to be a security risk for entire humanity. These two “isms” are in fact illegal in a number of countries, and for a good reason.

Garth:You obviously do not understand the quote from Roy Jordan, sourced from Parliamentary Library. It clearly states, we have no freedoms set in legislation and that means we do not “have a system with checks and balances”. “Morality and ethics” play no role in law. Should you have some real issue you would like to express and the government of the day decided to deny you the right to discuss such issue you would have no grands to appeal your human right to free speech under current legal system. I guess the distinction here is: we act as if we have guaranteed freedoms, while in reality such guarantees does not exist.

Garth says:

06:09pm | 31/05/10

SmithPbuh, while what you say sounds nice, it actually works in the opposite way intended, just like so-called ‘vilification’ laws which have been used to prosecute people not for vilification but for standing up for what they believe. In Australia we have legislated a system whereby the courts interpret them for the good of the people. The courts are not subject to the parliaments in determining the justice prescribed. However if you legislate specific laws (ie vilification being a great example as a ‘right’ that was legislated) they can then be used to the letter for politcal purposes instead of interpreted by the justice system for the betterment of society, which is where that ended up being resolved, and might I add essentially in favour of those accused and charged. You sound as though you are a parrot for the UN. It’s a dangerous organisation to liberty in the world, and the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is a dangerous document which will be used against people for political purposes. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at history.

You said…
“In modern age we have two very recent examples were the tolerant society decided not to tolerate the intolerant: nazism was first, shortly followed by communism as they reached and proved to be a security risk for entire humanity.”

Actually I view this in a very different light. Nazism rose because good men stood silent fearful of retaliation by the regime. “Tolerant society” tolerated because they had given away their power, by allowing Hitler to legislate against those who he hated. And Hitler was smart, he knew that “Tolerant society” would stay silent in fear if the Nazis went for the minority elements first such as any religious organisations or people who were speaking out against him, and then moved inwards to mainstream, until there was no-one left to defend “Tolerant society” anymore. If it wasn’t for the Nazis losing the war all society would have been overrun by it. So much for you “tolerant society”.

Communism is a cancer in society and once again it’s primary hatred is reserved for Christians closely followed by anyone of any faith because it is it’s own religion - just like militant humanism which we see rising in Australia. Once again, it is Christianity and other faiths which stand against these monstrosities, not your “tolerant society”.

Davo says:

01:52pm | 27/05/10

I hope they win government, just so we can get back to the hand ringing of people like you nosthow.

It seriously use to crack me up listening to the Howard haters. One of my greatest pleasures used to be going to a pub in the westen suburbs of Melbourne and finding a teacher to discuss the outstanding leaps forward we were taking as a nation under Howard. Funny stuff…

T.Chong says:

04:40pm | 27/05/10

Yeah Davo, so what exactly happened to yur much beloved ex PM?  Voted out, and lost his seat.
Appears lotsa people hated Howard. As you say, funny stuff.

nosthow says:

07:21pm | 27/05/10

Poor Davo. Do you realise it couls be 10 years before another Coalition government wins power in Australia ? Keeping clinging to the Howard era Davo - read T. Chongs wise comments !

Garth says:

11:45pm | 27/05/10

yep, second that

Garth says:

11:44pm | 27/05/10

??? Lillian, have you been hiding under a rock these last few months? Have you missed that man-assisted global warming is a scam, a crock, and it was built on 10 years of scientific lies and political deceit? Or did you just choose to ignore that part? Yep, silly Cory getting all hot and bothered about those little porkies that the gullible public was told.

Given your success at picking a winner with non-existent AGW, I guess that’s good enough reason to for me to definitely back Cory with this then.

Garth says:

12:11am | 28/05/10

Nicely put Catriona. simple decision really isn’t it?

Chris says:

03:27pm | 27/05/10

Could not agree more!

Pip says:

04:26pm | 27/05/10

I tried to put forward my fairly innocuous views on Mr. Bernadi’s website, but it seems the only ones that were accepted were just a bit sycophantic.  Was I the only one who put forward a slightly different point of view or does he only accept high praise.

Garth says:

12:43am | 28/05/10

Nicely put Catriona. simple decision really isn’t it?

Dan says:

03:08am | 28/05/10

Give me a break. Nobody is suggesting that it should be part of the required dress for anyone living in a Western culture, since there is NO required dress for anyone living in a Western culture. Some people will wear clothing that is specific to their religion or culture, however that is their choice.

As for ‘entering premises that require someone to remove a helmet or show any form of identification’, that has nothing to do with the Government. Whether or not ANZ bans it or not is up to ANZ (and they haven’t BTW).

The issue here is whether or not the Government should have the right to ban it, and that goes against everything that I had thought that ‘Western values’ were based upon. BTW,  instead of encouraging or discouraging it, why don’t you just accept it?

As for Bernardi, to describe his views as ‘fairly innocuous’ is completely absurd.

Andrew says:

05:21pm | 27/05/10

you should go to Iran or any other muslim nation and see the reception homosexuals get there. The koran is very specific about homosexuality. How does that reconcile with your religion and personal beliefs.

John says:

05:42pm | 27/05/10

Iranians are of the Shiite strain of Islam…their treatment of most minorities is awful…not necessarily based on religion. There is a part of the Koran which discusses the third gender…no radical will discuss it or perhaps acknowledge it…it says those of the third gender should pray at the back of the mosque (thats it) ....but what Islamic radicals refuse to accept is that the Koran was handed down with its teachings also to be interpreted with new knowledge and social advances to be taken into consideration…..the bible talks about gays in its own horrible way doesn’t it? you should go to Istanbul Turkey recognised as one of Europe’s gay destinations….

bella starkey says:

05:48pm | 27/05/10

Yeah it says “He who is without sin cast the first stone”

(or something, i might have gotten that off TV, catholic school wasn’t big on the bible persay”

John says:

06:06pm | 27/05/10

@bella check out The Westboro Baptist Church and then let me know what you think.

Garth says:

12:40am | 28/05/10

John: Whoever said “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” was so right? As a Muslim you need to learn more about what your faith preaches. Homosexuality is not accepted by Muslims in fundamentalist Muslim countries, which by my count is most of them. You may want to argue about it but as you cherry pick quotes out of the Koran to argue with (just like you’re incorrectly cherry picking from the Bible) it’ll be at the price of your freedom or possibly your head.

Bella, it doesn’t take too much Bible study to discover that it say for Christians not to judge the unrighteous, but to judge themselves first, and their brothers/sisters in Christ so that all remain ‘in Christ’. This scripture you refer to was no a blanket statement by Jesus about judgement but clearly the context was related to the unrighteous religious people who were gathering around the woman to judge her of the very same sins they were committing. That’s why they all skulked away - he didn’t say not to throw a stone in judgement for Jesus was there to uphold & fulfil the Old Testament Laws (contained in the Torah).

But I gotta agree if more Christians judged themselves of their own sin before they opened their mouths about others first it would be a nicer place to live wouldn’t it? Not too much judgement from anyone then methinks.

Garth says:

12:55am | 28/05/10

Yep, there are plenty of murderers in this country too - doesn’t mean that if their activities come to the attention and light of public scrutiny they won’t find themselves in jail for it.

Stereotypes exist because they represent the generality of something.

Garth says:

12:51am | 28/05/10

Yep, and as a Christian I will defend your right to choose and to criticise, even to death if I must. There can be no real love without real freedom of will.

James1 says:

10:09am | 31/05/10

Indeed.  One of the values those men fought for was our freedom, our freedom to wear as many clothes as we see fit.  And now people with foreign sounding names (I mean Bernadi, what is that anyway?) want to take that freedom away from us.  My ancestors did not die fighting the Nazis and the Japanese so that people could just strip women and cyclists the freedom to cover their face for culture/weather related reasons.

cityboy @ Sydney says:

12:22pm | 31/05/10

Oh, OK, ...if you say so, Mrs Bernardi!

mbt shoes says:

01:02pm | 04/03/11

We always look for something can’t reach

ShirleyRosenberg says:

08:41am | 01/03/11

This definitely isn’t the future we want, but as long as people understand it, I’m sure we’ll make the changes to avoid it
resume writing service

Ananda maris says:

05:42am | 14/03/12

this is very informative “Australia is at a crossroads. This is potentially a major shift in Australia’s social fabric. If we want to preserve Australian values Cory Bernardis must learn to integrate their views with mainstream opinion.”..I learned a lot of things from the article. More power tenant screening