Holy War in the City of Churches

Mother Rose says:

09:59am | 31/10/10

Another gem from eric who thinks the emperor is wearing clothes.

Gra gra says:

11:03am | 31/10/10

Eric, the law says that we are not to appear naked in public. The argument here is whether we should be allowed to choose what we wear, and of course, prroviding it poses no threat, (or perceived threat), we should have freedom of choice. I think you are being a little precious.

Tedd says:

02:12pm | 31/10/10

judging by the skimpy clothes Australians were in summer, especially at the beach, there isn’t much to this the so-called law governing what we wear, Eric.  Judging by the frequency of toplessness, perhaps you might do well to keep abreast of the times.

Chris L says:

04:35pm | 31/10/10

Gra Gra, I think you made Eric’s point. There is a law that forces people to wear articles of clothing. I’m not keen to see our generally obese population strutting their stuff around, but the fact is that we have laws that force people to don specific clothing (to hide regions of the body from sight).

It is hardly a big leap to extend this to banning specific articles of clothing. I think people should have full freedom on what they do or do not wear, but this country has not had such freedom for over 200 years.

Bec says:

12:13pm | 01/11/10

What? Of course public nudity is illegal, I don’t want to be walking down the street and have to look at other people’s bits! And I’m sure they don’t want to look at mine either. What a weird example.

Chris L says:

06:08pm | 01/11/10

A “wierd” example Bec? We were talking about the freedom to attire oneself however one chooses and pointing out that there are already laws in place that restrict our choices. Your response (“Of course public nudity is illegal”) shows that you, along with most of us, are so accustomed to this restriction that you don’t notice it. However it is pointless to argue against a burka ban on the grounds of individual rights and freedoms when we have long had laws that govern and restrict this.

James1 says:

10:20pm | 31/10/10

So ban burqas in banks,  But like motorcylce helmets, there in no good reason to ban burqas altogether. 

I share Penbo’s opinion.  No one should wear a burqa, but neither should we force anyone not to wear a burqa.  If we did tell Muslim women how to dress, would we be any better than the men who tell Muslim women how to dress?

Copper log says:

01:10pm | 31/10/10

I don’t have a problem with it.

To assume that a woman in this country isn’t aware of her rights (it’s splashed across just about every aspect of our society constantly) is a furphy in and of itself.

Yes the burqa did not originate directly from Islam. It was a cultural adoption. Yes, there may be something wrong about that culture. But these are free women, aware of their choices in this country who choose to wear it. To ban it makes a mockery of our freedoms and belittles the women making that choice.

Danny B says:

08:43am | 01/11/10

@ Copper Log:

You’re assuming that they choose to wear it.  From what I’ve heard, this isn’t the case.  What I’d like to see is a ban on forcing women to wear the burqua - that would be closer to the mark.

marley says:

07:29pm | 31/10/10

I gather you don’t care for religion.  Fair enough.  But please explain to me why the Abrahamic faiths as you call them (and I’m assuming you’re including Islam in that category) are worse than Hinduism and its caste system, or a number of the Mesoamerican religions with their human sacrifice. 

And insofar as Stalin is concerned, he was certainly not a proponent of religion during his many years in power.  Quite the contrary.  Should all atheists be held to account for his sins?

Raguel says:

02:39pm | 01/11/10

@ marley… Agree for the most part, just wanted to clarify that Stalin (and for that matter Hitler and Pol Pot, who are often cited as Atheists) never stood up and stated “I do this in the name of Atheism!”  On the whole they were just psychopaths (or megalomaniacs or whatever psychosis best fits!).

The same can not be said for the leaders of any of the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition or the Jihadist extremist (the list here is extensive and covers most religions but I think the point is made) who all commit/ted their atrocities in the name of their God.

It is a bit rich to profess that a religion is good only when referencing it to the good deeds done by the faithful (of which, I am happy to agree, there are many) but then ignoring the darker chapters of those same religions and professing that the perpetrators of the evils committed in gods name are not the true proponents of the religion but the misguided few (million).

There are, I am sure, evil Atheists out there… but they are evil in their own name and as individuals not as spokespeople for a greater power as, by virtue of their very nature, Atheists are not a formed collective. Atheism is just the name given to those who do not believe in gods.  That definition can then be further sub categorised due to the vast ways in which Atheists reject gods. So to answer your question… No all Atheists can not be judged on the actions of any other Atheist because Atheists are not a collective who act in the name of nothingness.

James1 says:

10:22pm | 31/10/10

And if there were born in Australia, what then?

Sven says:

02:11pm | 23/11/10

Haha, I dont understand how this argument always mixes race/culture/nationality with religion.  This discussion is about a religion, you can’t deport a catholic back to where they came in much the same way you can’t deport a muslim back to their country of origin.  By your reasoning, where would you deport and Indigenous Australian who practiced such a fundamental form of Islam? I’m pretty sure that there are a number of Indigenous Australians that practice Islam.

The same can be said for those that accuse me for being a racist when I comment negatively about certain aspects of Islam or other religions. Such as the prophet’s favourite wife; Aisha.  Who was 9 years old when they consumated their marriage.  How can I be a racist when it is religion in general that I take issue with?  I dont descriminate on the basis of religion either, as an atheist, I would have very few friends if I did.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

11:08pm | 31/10/10

Funny thing is the hoodie seems to elicit less anger, go figure

The Badger says:

10:04am | 31/10/10

Do any other pieces of clothing “say” things to you?

Or is it just a burqa or a veil that talks to you?

Tom says:

02:00pm | 31/10/10

Yes badger, and swastikas talk to me, jewellery talks to me, cars talk to me. In fact badger lots of things “say” something about the wearer or the owner. If they don’t “say” anything to you, you may need a remedial course in how society operates.

Vicki PS says:

04:01pm | 31/10/10

So what should we do about nuns who wear veils?  Chassidic men in caftans with full beards?  Women wearing sheitels?  Monks and priests in cassocks?  Wait…scrap that last one.

xyz says:

10:34pm | 31/10/10

Vicki PS:

This article is about completely covering a woman’s face with either a burqa or niqab. None of your clothing suggestons cover the face at all… so what are you on about? No-one has a problem with a hijab (i.e. a head-scarf)!

mickijo says:

12:47pm | 31/10/10

What about New Guinea natives in their penis sheaths, that,  too,is freedom of dress-their style. We have fairly loose laws of dress, some would say too loose, but it must be pointed out to immigrants that if they wish to persist in such outlandish outfits, they do it back in their own country. It is not acceptable here.

acotrel says:

03:12am | 01/11/10

Abuse of our basic freedoms means we can easily lose them!  I always believed that in Australia we were free to wear what we liked?

mickijo says:

12:52pm | 31/10/10

“Our PM’ Aha! Now a burqa might be preferable in some cases…..

AliceC says:

03:28pm | 02/11/10

@jim morris

And where have you found this research?

My understanding of the burqa according to ‘The Caged Virgin’ by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who is Muslim and brought up in a strict Muslim household), is that they must wear it to protect men from their ‘urges’ (if a woman is raped, it is her fault for tempting the man). It has nothing to do with their opinon of Western culture.

By your theory, men would also wear the Burqa….

Zac says:

12:02pm | 31/10/10

I have said it before… Have your religion if you must, just keep it at home and leave the rest of us alone.>>>

Your agenda here is to drive religion out of the public place. Let me tell you this, have your Atheistic beliefs if you must, just keep it at home and leave the rest of us alone.

Akraseil Rising says:

07:06pm | 31/10/10

@ Zac… Yes you are absolutely right. Religion of any sort is a communion between you and the god you serve. It has no place being used as a devisive wedge driven through the community. If you can’t agree on what or who god is (and that is made clear in the many seperate factions of Christianity and Islam that exist, not to mention other belief systems) then it needs to be left out of decision making processes that are designed to benifit ALL Australians, not just those with the most converts.

Gregg says:

11:17pm | 31/10/10

So A Krazi el rising,
I’m not really religious and would not quite put myself down as an athiest so perhaps I need to found my own ” do the right thing ” sect.

From what you imply, as long as I do not convert my sect to islam, I and any of my followers can wear burquas as long as we obey any laws for removing it when deemed necessary.

OK, sounds fine
But then why should we discriminate against muslims?

Akrasiel Rising says:

12:18pm | 01/11/10

Once again Gregg finding it a bit hard to follow your train of thought… It is not about discrimination of anyone, the thread was about burqas but you can replace it with any form of religious practice that believes itself to be above the law of the land. I support the removal of religion from secular decision making on the basis that, on th whole, none of the religions can agree on how things should be done. Apologies to the rest of the Punchers for the repition of point needed by way of clarication for the few.

FFS says:

01:27pm | 31/10/10

Vicki, your argument is very tenuous at best. The analogy of a full-face covering with a beard is laughable. A beard is an identifying characteristic easily concealed by a full-face covering. It’s much like saying that because you can’t wear a hat inside Parliament, you also can’t have hair. Your argument against the idea of concealing the female form is once again drawing a very long bow. As any reasonable person would know, there is nothing black and white in this world, only varying shades of grey. To compare having to conceal the entire body, including the face, with not wishing to expose the breasts is ludicrous. If you can’t see the difference, then this debate is way over your head. Also, no-one is arguing that Islamic women, or any woman for that matter, should not be allowed to wear concealing garments. Just not garments that conceal the face. My mum is a baby boomer, as are my aunties. I don’t ever recall them feeling the need to conceal their faces for modesty’s purpose.
The only argument that breaks down under the weight of logic is yours. Essentially, you are arguing the unarguable, and need to try a lot harder than what you have dished up so far.

JaneS says:

01:47pm | 31/10/10

‘Security risk because the face is concealed?  So is a full beard.’

No.  Unless there is an abnormality, a beard normally doesn’t obscure the forehead, tops of the cheeks or eyes.  Further beards are not opaque.  You can still see skin under the beard.  Bad analogy.  You’re comparing bodily hair to clothing.

‘“The people within our Islamic communities who argue that women should cover up are so often men”?  Actually, they are more often the women themselves.’

You got any evidence for that?

Vicki PS says:

08:55pm | 31/10/10

Re. beards—a full beard conceals as much of the face as a niqab, with just as much effect on concealing identity.  It’s easy enough to prove to yourself.  Try identifying a photograph of someone clean-shaven, having only seen the person bearded previously.  It’s worked for wanted criminals for centuries.  In fact, I failed to recognise a photograph of my own husband clean-shaven!

@FFS:  Why do you feel the need to patronise and attack me, especially since you seem to have totally missed the point?  Ask yourself why anglo-european women customarily do not expose their breasts, and could in fact attract prosecution if they do so in some circumstances.  The truthful answer is that it is merely deeply ingrained custom based originally on a religious concept of modesty.  I’m afraid your pretense of not knowing this is a pretty lame evasion.  It is an exact parallel with the reasons for wearing the niqab or burqa: the only difference is in the body parts.  Read your European religious history, or go and talk to a Christian religious, who I’m sure would be more than happy to enlighten you.  And ask your Mum and aunties if they wore hats to church back in the day? 

Moreover, to draw the male parallel, men in this day and age still get prosecuted for indecency if they urinate in public.  Why is this?  Could it be because of an ingrained traditional belief that women and children will run mad if exposed to the sight of male genitalia, even though the act is strictly non-sexual and driven by necessity?  Body taboos tend to keep their potency even when the original rationale has long ago dissipated.

Eyes are the facial feature which most identifies individuals, as we know from the custom of only blacking out the eyes to protect privacy in media pictures, but I have yet to see much of an argument mounted for an across the board ban on dark glasses.

@JaneS:  If you look at media coverage specifically canvassing reasons and support for Islamic women covering up, my experience has been that the quotes and interviews more often involve women explaining why they choose to continue the custom and are comfortable with it.  The ghastly Sheik Hilaly’s comments were very much the objectionable exception, as reaction from across the Islamic community showed.

FFS says:

01:17pm | 01/11/10

Vicki, I have not missed your point at all, nor am I trying to evade it. If you read what I said, it is clear that I understand what you are saying; however, the comparison is far too broad in this context. Facial concealment has never had a legitimate place in our society, and comparing it to breast concealment is simplistic and lazy. My point is, the same as it is for the point about beards, is that life is never “This is this, so that must be that”; there are always variables and inconsistencies that make analogous reference impossible, and they seem to inevitably lead to grossly exaggerated and ultimately worthless comparisons (eg. mask/beard, face/breasts etc.).

Cheryl says:

12:52am | 07/11/10

Totally and absolutely agree with you Gra gra…. well said mate!

Elwoodius says:

06:19pm | 08/11/10

I will agree with this comment whole-heartedly… just as soon as I clean the coffee out of my keyboard.

Cheryl says:

12:57am | 07/11/10

WELL SAID Veonique…..

Nicole says:

05:47pm | 01/11/10

And it’s just lucky that you’ve got a good looking one hey?

James1 says:

10:08am | 01/11/10

That wasn’t about religion, that was about an ethnic feud that has been going on for nearly one thousand years.  It relates far more to land and territory than it does to religion.

Emily H says:

11:12am | 01/11/10

are you religous Traxster? if not do you know someone who is? How many Aussie Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. do you know who would obey a similar order by a leader of their church/temple. How many do you know who don’t draw a line between extremist views and their own religion? Don’t condemn one religion, the media might cover islamic terrorists the most but it is naive to consider they are the only ones. Look into it. If these are your fears I’d be glancing sideways at ALL your neighbors not just the Muslims.

smith says:

01:42pm | 01/11/10

“How many Aussie Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. do you know who would obey a similar order by a leader of their church/temple.” None. Its not written into the scriptures of those religions to kill those who don’t believe in their faith.

Charlie says:

03:40pm | 01/11/10

Well you might find some limitations, for example females are expected to wear a vail in the Vatican…minor little thing that is..

Aussie-Turko says:

10:11am | 01/02/11

@Smith: “How many Aussie Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. do you know who would obey a similar order by a leader of their church/temple.” None. Its not written into the scriptures of those religions to kill those who don’t believe in their faith.”

Actually if you read the Bible it is quite clearly there to kill all non-believers. I can’t be bothered putting the reference, so go do your own research.

Luce says:

03:11pm | 01/11/10

@Rebecca, you just articulated a lot of what I’ve been thinking this entire time.  Aside from all the issues surrounding cultural sensitivity, it is an impractical garment, definitely spooky, and is an antisocial statement against western society. Why choose to live in a western country and enjoy everything it has to offer, yet remain so obviously separated from it?
And aside from all that, I find the idea that a woman should cover her entire body, especially her face, archaic and offensive. It really only serves to eliminate the woman’s individuality, making her conform to the image of a faceless ghost. Some women may choose to wear it, but that doesn’t change the general perception of such an action.

Dan says:

06:13pm | 01/11/10

“It is absolutely and totally primitive,  unsociable and spooky.”

That is your view, but it does not justify banning it.

“And I will not apologise for saying, thinking or feeling that. In western culture we do not cover our faces.”

Perhaps we do not, but we also accept differene. To foce someone to show their face is not Western culture.

“it demonstrates a lack of respect for our culture and us and implies a sense of superiority over us.”

Them and us. Has it occured to you that Muslims also live in the West?

Anyway, what makes you think that your culture is representative of everyone else’s? It’s not representative of mine.

“It says that their culture and beliefs are more important than ours. And in our own country?  That offends me.”

It’s also their country.

This is not about which culture or beliefs are more important, it’s about accepting difference.

Perhaps other people’s culture includes toleranve and a respect for difference?

Dan says:

06:18pm | 01/11/10

Exactly.

This article is absurd. Firstly, why should people assimilate? The word is incredibly offensive as it implies that there is only one way to be Australian.

Whether the burqa is oppressive or not is subjective, but to say that it’s a public statement is absurd. It’s also irrelevent. So what? Should people just junk the ‘sorry’ t shirts? Give me a break.

Finally, Muslims have every right to be hyper-sensitive ‘towards any discussion of their behaviour and, specifically in this case, their attire’ since it is none of anyone’s business. They are not children, and unless Penbury wants people to discuss his attire or behaviour, he should lay off them.

Like whitefella, I want to be proud of Australia’s acceptance of difference. This isn’t promising.

impossible says:

08:38pm | 01/11/10

Me thinks Whitefella and Dan should move to The Yemen.  They will be really appreciated there.  They can even dress up in burqas and get a real kick out of wearing the latest shade of black burqa.

Dan says:

08:33am | 02/11/10

Me thinks that Impossible should look up tolerance and acceptance of difference. Perhaps he will learn that just because someone expresses a different opinion, does not mean they should leave the counrtry. Impossible does not get to determine how people should act or think here, and if he doesn’t appreciate difference, perhaps he should leave!

whitefella says:

09:10am | 02/11/10

methinks ‘impossible’ should go back to geography classes. As far as I’m aware, the country you’re referring to is no more The Yemen as our country is The Australia.
I can’t believe this debate - while you all are full of vitriol of what’s acceptable to wear in Australia, you probably are the same Aussie men who wear singlets or women who wear short skirts in Bali, Bangkok, Cambodia etc - without knowing how offensive that is, or defending your right to do so!

impossible says:

02:05pm | 02/11/10

Whitefella - you don’t obviously know me.  I am well aware of where The Yemen is, likewise Australia.  Two different countries, two different hemispheres and two different cultures.  You need to realise there is an assumption of assimilation by the general public when it comes to refugees.  This is the same in whatever country you choose to live in.  You need to live with that FACT.  BTW I am not a singlet wearing man nor a mini skirted woman.  I am merely asking for some respect of the Australian culture, and yes before you chant with your usual rubbish, there is an Australian culture, just ask a Yemeni what our culture is.  When women go to Saudi Arabia they are expected to cover up, when people come to Australia they are expected to NOT cover up.  That is our culture and that should be respected.  It’s simple really.  You bleedy heart people need to realise you’re in the minority and stop calling people names because people don’t agree with your leftist BS.  It’s very immature.

whitefella says:

08:29am | 03/11/10

I haven’t caleld you any names - but boy, I’m becoming tempted!
I agree that there is an assumption of assimilation when it comes to migrants. But when that relates to what people should wear and what they shouldn’t, that assumption deserves to be challenged.
Secondly it shouldn’t come down to whether you’re a refugee or not- my beautiful hijab-wearing friend was born here and has no obligation to start wearing your uniform.
I’m not a bleeding heart. I simply believe in respecting other people’s choices, where those choices don’t impact on others. I don’t have any problems with nuns wearing habits - do you, impossible?
If you open your mind a little more, impossible, you might notice some flowers and other wonders that you can’t currently see.

Dan says:

05:56pm | 01/11/10

Jihad means struggle, and the highest form of Jihad is inner Jihad. There are moderate Muslims just as there are moderate Christians. Whether or not Islam is a race is irrelevent, you can stil be an absolute bigot.

yes, people who wear the burqa may do so because they want to be identified as Muslim, so what? Should they have to hide it?

A silly response to a silly article.

Aussie-Turko says:

10:37am | 01/02/11

To all these people that keep on spouting their “Go back to where you came from bs, what if this Muslim girl who covers herself is a decendant of the first fleet or better yet, an aboriginal. Are you gonig to send them back to England or Papua?

Aussie-Turko says:

10:39am | 01/02/11

Acutally, I am pretty sure, in Indonesia, Lebanon, Jordan Turkey, and many other Muslim countries, you are free to walk around in a Bikini.

Just because Saudi Arabia and Iran and possible 1 or 2 other countries are strict with their laws doesn’t mean you should condemn the remaining 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet.