Prev
Next

The Niqabitches: Vive la difference

Yagmur Cagrier

by Yagmur Cagrier

12 Oct 06:00am

Must Reads

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it - this is a caption

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

180

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment - this is a caption

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

27

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest - this is a caption

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

3

Filed under: Burqa, Burqa Ban, France, Islam, Niqab, Women

145 comments

Over the past week, two 20-something French students protested France’s new law banning the burqa by filming themselves walking through Paris in a niqab (similar to the burqa but with a slit for the eyes) – teamed with mini-shorts and black high heels.

The self-titled ‘Niqabitches’ described it as a tongue-in-cheek criticism of the ban.

You’ve gotta love the French – particularly French students. Although some may see the Niqabitches’ protest as ridiculing the niqab, their message was quintessentially French: vive la différence! or each to their own.

It’s a message that we could learn from here in Australia with calls for a ban on the burqa following a robbery by burqa-clad men in Sydney earlier this year. The robbery was a catalyst for Liberal senator Cory Bernardi to lead the charge, arguing that Australia should ban the burqa.

The senator’s grounds for wanting to ban the burqa are not completely unreasonable as far as security is concerned. But a few isolated incidents in no way justifies infringing upon the right of a woman to wear the burqa if she chooses to. (And no, I don’t assume that all Islamic women are forced to wear it.)

The message of the French students should also be observed by the participants on the recent Insight program on SBS. It was frustrating viewing because the program participants furiously spoke over each for a lot of the time. This isn’t rare, but it was worse than usual. The urge to mute my television made one thing obvious: the public debate about banning the burqa is going nowhere fast.

The Niqabitches’ form of protest in France was also great because it cut through the usual high-sounding political rhetoric. While many of us may not express our views and concerns through traditional ideals such as appealing to democracy and the liberalism, this doesn’t mean we aren’t politically engaged. As students, we can make a point, even if it’s politically incorrect.

In this regard, the tired public debate surrounding the burqa echoes the exhausted debates about abortion. Those who want to see the burqa banned are, in some ways, like the anti-choice advocates of the abortion debate. They want to take away the ability for others to make a choice.

While some of these views are, no doubt, well intentioned, such as preserving the life of a fetus or ensuring that criminals don’t use the burqa as a disguise, the anti-choice/burqa-ban advocates are essentially forcing their views upon others.

Such views are out of place in a world of cultural diversity. If a multicultural society, we need to be more tolerant of differences. This means being comfortable with the fact that others have different views to our own – even if we’re not entirely comfortable with the content of those views. 

Living in a multicultural society means not feeling the need to convince every other person to change their view to fit with our own opinions. This is possibly because we just can’t be bothered. More than anything, it is about choice. We have more choice than our parents and grandparents and we’re not about to give that up by taking away the choice of others.

So I’m going to keep hanging out with the Niqabitches: vive la différence!

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
223The world puzzles over Australia's Prime Minister

145 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:06am | 12/10/10

      I’d love to see the Niqabitches try that stunt in Pakistan or Somalia. They’d get beaten half to death within minutes for exposing their legs.

      It’s easy to make vapid ‘statements’ from within the safety of a liberal democracy. But by supporting Islamic fundamentalism in this way, the Niqabitches and their fellow travellers erode human rights globally.

      Reply

    • HappyCynic says:

      07:37am | 12/10/10

      So what you want to say is that all who wear the burqa or the niqab are fundamentalists (untrue) and that statements made in the safety of a civilised and democratic country are invalid because they don’t risk life and limb (preposterous) and that you’d love to see someone physically injured for making their opinions, which disagree with yours, known (sick, perverse and undemocratic).

      Just because you don’t like one brand of fundamentalism doesn’t mean your brand of fundamentalism is any better (and your views are fundamentalist), but I respect your right to view your opinion no matter how twisted and wrong it might be because brainless d*ckheads like yourself show normal, decent people how not to live and that, combined with the good aspects, are what’s good about having and respecting different cultures in our country, including the Islamic culture.

    • Richard V says:

      07:43am | 12/10/10

      But they are not in Pakistan or Somalia are they? They are in a country where they are free to express themselves, I think that might be the point.

    • Fred says:

      07:48am | 12/10/10

      Eric that is their point - they are in a liberal democracy and it’s not ‘easy’ to make that point, the reason they’re making it is because it is now illegal.

      You could say they are supporting Islamic fundamentalism, but I like to think of it as them supporting a citizen’s right to wear whatever clothing they like, regardless of religious implications, in this so-called liberal democracy

    • Barry says:

      01:29pm | 12/10/10

      Besides the point, there would be nothing wrong with the women getting beaten half to death anway in Pakistan.  In the Middle East, that is completely appropriate.  We can’t force our Westernized views upon other nations, just because we think human rights are being globally eroded.  Who decided that global human rights actually exist?  It’s really up to society to determine what is the best set of “ethics” for them.  If the Middle Eastern societies have determined that women getting beaten for dressing inappropriately is part of achieving a functioning, and successful society and culture, which will continue to survive, then that is up to them, and they are perfectly entitled to do that.  The Arabic races are just fulfilling the evolutionary potential of their society.  They keep their women under control, the men of the nations are continually fighting, hey presto, the strong survive, and breed rapidly, and in large numbers with the subjected women.  Bob’s your uncle, 8 Muslim children born for every non-Muslim child, and the entire world will basically end up run by Arabs in the next 100 years.  It’s just a natural part of their society, which is working quite well for them.  If we can’t compete, it’s our own problem.  That’s what I got out of this article anyway, I mean seriously we can’t force our views upon anyone else . . . . . . .

    • Barry says:

      02:51pm | 12/10/10

      Please take note this was an unedited post which was written pretty badly, and I realise Pakistan is not in the Middle East.

    • acotrel says:

      03:54am | 13/10/10

      I’ve noticed a people making public statements about opposing our democracy, and capitalism.  I believe that capitalism can look after itself, however democracy must be protected.  I suggest that when such statements are made, our preference for democracy and freedom should be politely, and strongly stated!  We sent several generations of our youth to several wars to fight for our freedom, and our basic human rights.  To oppose democracy on any basis,  is a clear unambiguous insult!

    • Joan says:

      06:52am | 12/10/10

      Ignorant you-  lauding the ignorant. The niqabitch dress is more offensive than a ban on the burqa…. it is mockery of the muslim people. And who thought of word niqabitch?.....the sick western arrogance of some .... who don’t stand up or know their own culture and mock, ridicule another….. in their arrogance, ignorance demostrate that they can`t tell difference between protest and ridicule.  Niqabitch- Super dumb offensive act - no protest and makes the ban on burqa look friendly.

      Reply

    • mary wide bay says:

      07:41am | 12/10/10

      Eye of the beholder, I’m with Yagmur.

    • Gonzo says:

      07:47am | 12/10/10

      Not just that, but to make an article about two stupid, utterly irrespectful girls as if it was some worldwide revolution - this girls went for the youtube publicity the Old Spice way and Yagmur swallowed the bait.

    • Beleezeabub says:

      09:21am | 12/10/10

      Eye of the beerholder, I’m with Dagmar

    • Disarmed says:

      07:17am | 12/10/10

      “But a few isolated incidents in no way justifies infringing upon the right of a woman to wear the burqa if she chooses to.”

      Try this one on for size:

      “But a few isolated incidents in no way justifies infringing upon the right of a man to own a seni-automatic rifle if he chooses.”

      Reply

    • mary wide bay says:

      07:57am | 12/10/10

      Cute but rather uneducated, comparing a burqa to a semi-automatic.

    • Muttley says:

      09:46am | 12/10/10

      nonsense Mary. It nicely summarises the argument. Most people do the right thing. Why ban something because of a few? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Its the way society operates. But unfortunately, it seems the needs of the vocal minority outweigh the needs of the many now.

    • Zeta says:

      10:00am | 12/10/10

      How many sentences do you see each day that you think about replacing a word with ‘semi-automatic rifle’ because you’re still sour about laws that passed 14 years ago?

      “The robbery was a catalyst for Liberal senator Cory semi-authomatic rifle to lead the charge, arguing that Australia should ban the burqa.”

      “This isn’t rare, but it was worse than semi-automatic rifle. The urge to mute my semi-automatic rifle made one thing obvious: the public semi—automatic rifle about banning the semi-automatic rifle is going nowhere semi-automatic rifle.”

    • Who says:

      10:10am | 12/10/10

      Very interesting comparison there Disarmed.  It would be interesting to know how many of the civil libertarians now supporting the notion of wearing whatever people want also supported Howard’s gun laws.

    • Eric says:

      04:35am | 13/10/10

      An excellent point well made, Disarmed.

      It’s telling that those who oppose you can’t argue your point, but only indulge in shallow insults.

    • elhombre says:

      09:12am | 13/10/10

      How about we ban the use of infantile slippery slope arguments. “A few isolated incidents in no way justifies infringing upon the right of a man to murder his family and neighbours if his football team loses”  is just as valid and lazy.

    • Jason says:

      08:41pm | 15/10/10

      Elhombre, your argument is just plain stupid. The act of killing someone IS a crime, pretty much anywhere. However, owning a semi-automatic gun needn’t be a crime, provided you are not bothering anyone else with it or adversely affecting the day-to-day business of society. Much like wearing a burqa. What you are suggesting is so far removed from what was a quite valid point, it is not even in the same city.
      Sometimes it’s best not to go thinking that you are so much brighter and more enlightened than everyone else, and perhaps start thinking through your argument first.

    • marley says:

      07:20am | 12/10/10

      @Eric and Joan - boy, did the pair of you miss the point.  This is a protest about what the young ladies see as silly law which infringes on a well-established right of choice - it’s not a protest for or against the burqa. 

      And sorry, but if these girls don’t have the right to engage in a perfectly legal, non-violent civil protest,  then that would indeed be an erosion of their human rights.

      Reply

    • Joan says:

      09:01am | 12/10/10

      You don’t get our letters…. to protest in this way for rights is an insult to burqa wearers…. the outfit of the silly girls is an insult - the word Niqabitch is an insult, an affront,  ....perhaps you won’t find it offensive - if I write `Marleybitch ... walking meat `-as a form of protest.against ignorance to every comment I disagree with in this blog.

    • marley says:

      12:21pm | 12/10/10

      Joan - you say the girls didn’t understand their own culture, but chose to denigrate another. I say they understood their culture, and its views on freedom of thought, expression and clothing, very well indeed.  They clearly think the law is silly.  They also think the burqa is silly.  And they made both points quite effectively.  Are you saying they shouldn’t have the right to have done so?  Because frankly, that’s a greater affront than anything the girls said or did.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      07:04pm | 12/10/10

      Joan,  when they say bitch, they are calling themsleves bitches, which is pretty common for young girls these days.  If you go around saying MarleyBitch, you are calling someone else a bitch.  Not cool.  If you want to call yourself JoanBitch, that’s fine by me, I’ll even buy you a beer.  Or dry sherry, if that’s what you prefer.

      Also interesting that everyone sees it as Niqa Bitch, and and Niqab Itch.  In that respect, I think it’s a very clever name for a protest on an issue that is becoming quite an irritation to many, leading to all sorts of scratching.

    • Old Clive says:

      07:31am | 12/10/10

      Who needs a multicultural society?. If people want to follow their old customs and quirks let them go back to where those customs originated, but please don’t force those customs onto us and please respect the usages and customs of the land that you have chosen to come and live, and polticians please stand up for Australian Customs that have made this country a country of choice, don’t sign anymore U.N. Treaties that degrade our nation and our standard of living.

      Reply

    • remlap says:

      09:18am | 12/10/10

      Hear, hear! We are perfectly capable of degrading our nation and standard of living on our own. We don’t need influences from other cultures that we can drag down with us.

    • Fred says:

      10:44am | 12/10/10

      But the problem with that old canard is that the fact is that Australian culture is, and always has been, multicultural.  We are a mix of peoples from other places.  English.  Irish.  Scottish.  German.  Italian.  Greek.  Chinese.  Vietnamese.  Thai.  Lebanese.  etc.  So what you are asking for is what, exactly?

    • St. Michael says:

      11:50am | 12/10/10

      Ah, ah, Fred: you’re using the wrong word there and it’s a bit intellectually dishonest as a result.  Australian has not always been multicultural: it has always been multiethnic, which is not the same thing.  Multiculturalism is a very recent concept.

      Consider: for all these different peoples, it seems that only the Muslims have wanted to impose their own religion on the Australian public.  When they got here, the Irish and the Scots tended to stop making terrorist attacks on the English embassy.  (Although the Welsh kept singing.)  The Germans tended not to wander around with swastika armbands, the Italians didn’t try to insist that the Pope should have supreme power over the Australian government, the Greeks didn’t go out shooting Cypriots, the Chinese didn’t have annual Mao days, the Vietnamese didn’t shoot the odd US tourist, and the Lebanese for the most part didn’t engage in bombings of Jewish synagogues or protest the Zionist movement.

      Among all of these people there was a general recognition that your own political and religious beliefs were private.  They also didn’t take offence, or scream that certain practices were, insults or declare fatwas against freethinkers or dissidents at the drop of a hat.  Therein lies the difference.

    • Fred says:

      12:47pm | 12/10/10

      @St. Michael.  You are just splitting hairs.  Are you arguing that Australia is mono-cultural, then?  No way, jose.  You need to get out and see your own country!  It is a simple statement of fact: Australia is already a diverse, multi-cultural society (as well as being multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious if you want to get technical).  Perhaps your definition of “culture” is particularly narrow.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:20pm | 12/10/10

      Oh, I’m not splitting hairs, Fred.  What I’m referring to is that unlike almost every other culture that comes to Australia, those from a fundamentalist Muslim background seem to have arrived in Australia with a determination to practice their culture/religion *in spite of* any existing culture that is already there.

      Compare that with virtually every other nationality or culture that’s arrived in Australia: some are insular, others closed communities, but all share the positive characteristic of practicing their culture/religion *alongside* those cultures that are present, not to dominate the ones that are already present.  You can have one culture that dominates a landscape but accommodates others; that is what Australia is.  Multiculturalism suggests many cultures existing alongside one another, which doesn’t work.

      The dominant culture in this country is that of the Western secular democracy.  Most other cultures existing this at least acknowledge this and don’t seek to overturn that fact.  Some sections of Muslim fundamentalist society, however, do.  Do you really want a separate religious system of law which is as valid as the secular legal system, Fred? Even the Aboriginal law of ‘payback’ in our culture is seen as flawed justice as best, and not deserving of full recognition under the Western system.

    • Fred says:

      01:52pm | 12/10/10

      “The dominant culture in this country is that of the Western secular democracy.”  Ah ha!  So you acknowledge that there are others!  The lessor cultures.  ie. the minority.  Fact: Australia is multi-cultural.

      Now, you keep harping on about how Muslims are insisting that they live seperate to us and that no other people’s have done this blah blah blah and that they are somehow eroding our legal system.  Do you have any real evidence of this?  I doubt it.  Maybe a few isolated anecdotal examples of hotheads spouting off their mouths too much.  But on the whole, they are no different than any immigrant group which has come to these shores.  We are simply freaking out too much over this.

      You watch: in a generation their kids will be playing cricket with your grandkids and everyone will be saying “Wow, aren’t we glad that the Muslims came here and made our country even more interesting a place to live than it was before”.  This has happened over and over and over.  When will we learn?

    • BanEdHardyJeansFirst says:

      03:36pm | 12/10/10

      Old Clive, I’d be delighted to never see the face of narrow minded “everyone must look like me” people.  Its the twisted angry mouths that give you all away… lets hope someone does force you wear a burqa (or at least a large hat) so I don’t have to see that anger and hatred.  Oh.  No one is forcing you to wear a burqa??  Or even a hat????  No one CAN force you to wear a burqa or a hat???? What a SHOCK!  Imagine, Australia, as a land of choice, a place that does not force people to wear things.  I will alert the international press. 
      Surely we should be so very very proud of that.
      BTW, Islam is not a race and Australia is secular as a state.  It has, as far as I am aware, no ingrained religious customs as many religions have been there, living together, since the first century of our existence.

    • Kika says:

      03:47pm | 12/10/10

      Never had a burqa woman turn up at my door on a Saturday morning trying to convert me to wearing a Burqa. Funny that.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:20pm | 12/10/10

      Never had a Jehovah’s Witness blow himself up on the promise of 77 virgins in Paradise.  Funny that.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:24pm | 12/10/10

      Also, @ Fred: again you’re misconstruing what I said.  I define multiculturalism as several cultures with equal standing running alongside one another, having separate legal systems and modes of behaviour, but somehow managing to occupy the same patch of ground.  That is not what we have in Australia, and never have, old chap.

      I also call straw man on your “Just wait thirty years and see how good the Muslims are then’ argument.  See, I’m not interested in 30 years from now.  I’m interested in the kids I have now and the predominantly young male morons from this cultural tradition who seem to think it is their sacred duty from God to convert my children to their religion, by persuasion if possible, but by the sword if not.

      I also don’t recall either the Vietnamese or Italian immigrants threatening to blow themselves up or announce jihad for the greater glory of Peewee Herman, er, Allah.  Have to compare apples with applies, old boy.

    • donkeyloving hobo says:

      05:35pm | 12/10/10

      @Kika, that is becaue she would not be let out of the house.

    • remlap says:

      09:00am | 13/10/10

      St. Michael… I call straw man on your straw main, and raise you a straw man, that I will burn as an effigy of you upon the pyre of your hordes of straw men that you have created in this thread.

      I.E. Get a real argument.

    • Kika says:

      11:02am | 13/10/10

      Strange again. My husband hardly lets me out of the house without an argument. And we’re non religious. Amazing.

    • mary wide bay says:

      07:40am | 12/10/10

      Love your article particularly your astute observation that the anti-choice/burqa-ban advocates are essentially forcing their views upon others. And that such views are out of place in a world of cultural diversity. If a multicultural society, we need to be more tolerant of differences. This means being comfortable with the fact that others have different views to our own – even if we’re not entirely comfortable with the content of those views.

      Amen to that.

      Reply

    • Dr Dog says:

      07:45am | 12/10/10

      The ban is ridiculous, as is the wearing of the burqa. The students have appropriated both arguements to define their entirely seperate view. Very Western culture of them I think Joan.

      Eric are you saying that it a bad thing to live in a liberal democracy where the silliness of both ban and burqa can be pointed out?

      To paraphrase, I decry the wearing of the burqa but will defend to the death their right to wear it. Or for the pope to wear a stupid hat. Or for Englishmen to wear shorts.

      Reply

    • Warren says:

      08:06am | 12/10/10

      As an Englishman I deeply resent that comment. Anyway, I wear speedos with socks and sandals not shorts.

    • marley says:

      07:08pm | 12/10/10

      But what about Germans in lederhosen on the beach?  There have to be some limits.

    • Dr Dog says:

      08:12am | 13/10/10

      I guess you could be right marley. After all those Germans might be using their bumbling good humour and Octoberfest fun to infiltrate our society, acheiving through beer what they failed to by invasion of Poland.

      As many of the even minded and intelligent folk posting on this site will tell you, the burqa is to terror what leiderhosen are to nazis. Can you imagine how much earlier we would have won the war if we had taken away the right to wear brown shirts?

      Warren you sound like an awsome alternative Prime Minister.

    • Marg Lennon says:

      07:49am | 12/10/10

      I love the niqabitches ...
      Vive La Biaches ...

      I wear a niqab here in Australia as a protest ...
      I’ve even snuck into Mosque, I am always waved past boozebusses, I have carried a carton of VB into the footy for freinds…
      I can go to Post Offices and banks with it on…and through customs too…
      I’ve entered court houses, gone throught the detectors, but have never exposed my face. 
      I also got a speeding photo ... it wasn’t me your honour, it’s a masked person, it doesn’t look like me…
      You all can do it too. 
      Why are there two sets of rules? 
      If I am forced to cover up from elbows to knees at Dandenong Pool during Ramadan, I’m going to wear the disguises to my advantage ...

      Reply

    • Mick says:

      09:18am | 12/10/10

      Hi Marg - I hope what you say is true - I love it!!!!

    • The Badger says:

      09:19am | 12/10/10

      I like your work Marg

    • Baal says:

      10:09am | 12/10/10

      Marg where can I get niqab. I really want to dress as a cross dressing muslim man. Not as a protest but to celebrate in australia i can dress however I please, also if it helps with the speeding fines then yay! I used to wear a balaclava out drinking out tell people it was traditional irish dress (i am irish btw).

    • Fatima says:

      10:56am | 12/10/10

      I feel its so hypocritical of you to use the ‘disguises’ to your advantage and at the same time be so against these ‘disguises’. Whose fault is it that no one checked who you really were at the post office or at the banks or even customs? Those people who were suppose to check, didn’t. Great job they’re doing.

    • Tracker says:

      11:36am | 12/10/10

      That was so funny Marg but I don’t think Fatima got it..lol

    • T.Chong says:

      11:42am | 12/10/10

      Dont worry Fatima, Marge is having a lend, wanting responses along the line of how outrageous etc . that Mulims can get away with things.
      I ‘ll call you, specially about the cartons, and security.

    • Fatima says:

      03:25pm | 12/10/10

      I did get the oh so funny poem Marge wrote, except I didn’t find it funny.

    • Fatima says:

      04:08pm | 12/10/10

      I did get the oh so funny poem, except I didn’t find it funny.
      Im guessing you missed my point in my response.

    • Baal says:

      05:07pm | 12/10/10

      Hey Fatima. I am not against the Niqab, I just do not believe it needs to be respected. I do not believe Eric’s views need to be respected. I do not think monotheists should be given special status. I am a man of faith but I do not preach. I have the god of the three books shoved in my face all the time but I do not try and convert people to my faith even tho I personally think mine is better than most peoples. I disagree with many of our laws but I always obey. I respect people Fatima, which is not the same thing as respecting beliefs, culture or silly costumes. I respect your right to wear a silly outfit but do you respect my right to say that it is silly. Do you hold the laws of my country above the laws the god of the three books?

    • Fatima says:

      10:19pm | 12/10/10

      Hey Baal,

      I do respect your right to speak your mind. My religion teaches me tolerance and acceptance of all.
      I never said that everyone should respect the burqa. I just don’t think anyone has the right from banning somone dressing in a particular way. Hope thats a bit more clearer.

    • acotrel says:

      04:04am | 13/10/10

      I don’t object to anything Muslim, except when democracy and our basic freedoms are attacked!  They need to be told!

    • Mirror says:

      08:01am | 12/10/10

      I love how we encourage freedom of expression, but by crikey don’t wear a burqa in our country.  It covers the face don’t you know!  Not in OUR country!

      Reply

    • BanEdHardyJeansFirst says:

      03:45pm | 12/10/10

      Or those Doc Martin boots.  You shouldn’t wear them.  They make your feet look much bigger than they are.  On men, that’s just deceptive.  You also take up more room on the bus.  And you can kick security guards in the groin and it hurts them.

    • Chris says:

      08:35am | 12/10/10

      This debate gets sillier and sillier. Havn’t robbers been wearing things over their head/face, like forever? So what is the security concern? Is the concern really about the western worlds anxiety hangover of 9/11? In my view, anxiety is a big driver of ignorance and also great seller of newspapers. What really is the issue? The western world has many things that inherrintly we do that are not that great for us as individuals but there are no laws banning it. Example; smoking.  So if someone chooses to hide their face for what ever reason thats their problem/benefit depending on which side of the debate you are in your knowledge of the topic. Lets just relax and accept.

      Reply

    • Duff says:

      10:54am | 12/10/10

      Totally Agree.  Why not, then, ban the wearing of Halloween costumes?  Or hoodies?  Or fake moustaches, wigs, makeup or dark sunglasses?  Baseball caps as well?  I would imagine it’s pretty darn easy to disguise yourself without wearing a Burka, and we’ve been doing it for years.

    • James1 says:

      12:11pm | 12/10/10

      The answer, Duff, is that non-Muslims like to wear those things.  You can bet if only Muslims wore motorcycle helmets, people would call for it to be banned.  Their real agenda is tarring all Muslims with the extremist brush, not the betterment of our liberal democracy.

    • BanEdHardyJeansFirst says:

      03:49pm | 12/10/10

      I love you guys!!!  Thanks for posting.

    • Richard says:

      08:38am | 12/10/10

      Have another Latte and view the world through the lens of privilege and enlightenment, something that is denied women the world over. The bur qua isn’t a religious freedom its a tool for suppression and isolation for ensuring difference. Accepting that as a right means quite literally accepting that its OK to support death by stoning. So Yagmur, have another coffee, watch another episode of sex in the city and moan about how bad parking is around law school. One day you’ll wake up.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      09:54am | 12/10/10

      I don’t think viewing the world through a lens of enlightenment is a bad thing… just saying.

    • Fatima says:

      10:46am | 12/10/10

      Richard, Im amazed by your ignorance. Maybe you should have another Latte and sit down and do your homework about Islam and the Burqa. This global view by ignorant people that the Burqa is a tool for suppression and isolation is completely wrong. What if I said that Sikh Indians that are forced to wear turbans, or Nuns that are forced to cover up head to toe are being surpressed or isolated? Would I not be told by 99.9% of people that Im wrong and that is not the case? Would I not be told that sort of dressing is part of their religion and that we should all be respectful of it?
      The problem is that the world has made it easier for everyone to point fingers and blame Muslims if anything is to go wrong. The convenience of degrading Muslims and the Religion itself has become so common that no one thinks twice before doing it. If anyone speaks in favour of Islam/Muslims, they are automatically looked down upon and marked as being crazy as they are going against the ‘norm’.
      As Chris has said above, robbers always wear things to cover their face. Only this time they chose to wear a burqa…again…how convenient. And who has to suffer the ban due to security reasons? Innocent people.

    • Shama says:

      11:16am | 12/10/10

      Fatima, unfortunately your reaction is like the typical knee jerk Muslims are vicitmised reaction.

      I think the difference is that Sikhs can take off their turbans if they wish even if it is sort of frowned upon.  Muslim women can choose not to wear the burqa but often times they are coerced right back into it. I don’t want to go into the instances but those who choose not to wear it are often harrassed, sometimes physically.  I have heard instances of at least mental harrassment in Sydney. If a society is liberal, it should work both ways-Muslim women should be able to wear a swimsuit for e.g.. That said, a ban is a contentious matter. And one should note that it is in place in France for reasons to do with the French republic (just like gun laws and the First amendment in the US - and no people I am not comparing guns and burqas - just that certain legal principles may seem incomprehensible to others). Its hardly likely to be enforced here.

      The robbers argument is stupid and self-defeating, I hope you realise that.

      And people please please stop bringing up nuns.  They choose to wear the garment - as do priests - as representative of a different kind of life dedicated to God. Its a completely different set up.

      The French Girls Outfit - perfect for Lady Gaga.

    • Dr Dog says:

      12:21pm | 12/10/10

      That’s total bullshit Richard,

      There are many cultural leftovers in the outfits Catholics or other religious Westerners wear, but that doesnt mean they still support the burning of witches.

      So Richard have another steaming cup of bile, watch some more Fox news and moan about how the wearing of the burqa has impacted on your similarly priviledged life, which is to say not at all.

      One day you will wake up and your neighbour will be wearing a burqa.

      PS: This should not be interpreted as a ringing endoresement of burqas, they are silly outfits designed as Richard points out, to oppress women. They just aren’t linked to stoning on any significant scale, especially in France or Australia.

    • marley says:

      12:30pm | 12/10/10

      Fatima - the Sikh religion requires a Sikh male leave his hair uncut (which generally, but not always, translates into wearing a turban).  The Muslim faith, on the other hand, does NOT require a woman to wear a burqa or niqab.  That is a tribal custom pre-dating Islam, which has simply been carried over into Islam.  It is no more a requirement of the faith than it is a requirement for nuns to wear a coif. It’s a custom, a tradition, and that’s it.

    • Fatima says:

      04:30pm | 12/10/10

      There are always incidents all around the world…good ones…bad ones. Why is it that if there is an incident that involves a muslim person, the head line of that incident will state the involvement of the person being a Muslim, whereas, if the incident involves a person of any other faith, the headline will simply state ’ a man did .....’. I know Im going completely off topic but my point is that all Muslims are continually victimised because of this.
      Marley, mate, thanks for telling me the requirements of Sikhism and Islam in regards to turbans and burqas. If burqas are only a custom/tradition and not a requirement, living in a multicultural society, do you still think they should be banned?
      I read in a comment somewhere below that the burqa is like a symbol of a man’s ‘property’ which is completely false. The same could be said about wearing wedding rings. In society, its compulsory for a married man and a married women to wear their wedding rings…why? So everyone else knows that they are someone else’s property. That’s opression…No?
      Just a thought.

    • marley says:

      06:33pm | 12/10/10

      Fatima - no, I don’t think burkas should be banned.

      However, having lived in an Islamic society for a couple of years, I absolutely do think they’re a symbol of male oppression. Men don’t wear them, after all.  The Quran says that women (and men) should be modestly dressed, and covered from neck to feet.  That doesn’t require a burqa. 

      I’ve had just about enough of seeing ladies in dark burqas on hot summer days, accompanying husbands wearing singlets and shorts (which IS a violation of the Quran).  So absolutely, I regard a burqa as oppressive. 

      Oh, and as to wedding rings, there’s no requirement, religious or otherwise, to wear one.  It’s a symbol of love, not possession.

    • Ken says:

      08:40am | 12/10/10

      When I lived in Indonesia in the late 90s, I knew a uni student who went to the Islamic University in Yogyakarta. At her uni classes she wore the hijab (head veil, face uncovered) and conservative neck-to-knee dress. In the evenings she would often go out to local student bars wearing hot pants and a singlet. She didn’t see any problem with expressing both her piety and her sexuality at different times.

      Reply

    • Marg Lennon says:

      08:41am | 12/10/10

      I choose to wear a niqab because I legally can; so can anyone else who doesn’t want their faces shown. 
      It seems ridiculous that authorities cannot identity me if I assault someone for expressing a different opinion to mine, or rob a milkbar, or even stab a teenager on the train…
      There cannot be two sets of laws to accommodate a cultural difference.
      BTW: the burka was used 400 years before Islam was invented, so it is NOT a religious thing.

      Reply

    • Baal says:

      05:11pm | 12/10/10

      Yeah seriously were can I get one? Not a joke, really want one now. I mean they look comfy.

    • Dr Dog says:

      08:23am | 13/10/10

      Freaking awsome, because in my daily life, just as many Muslim women, I see people on the train that I would really like to stab. Now I know I can get away with it I must have a burqa now.

      Is it possible that I could have some sort of e-burqa which would allow me to assualt the people on this site that I disagree with?

      The powers of this religious superwoman outfit seems to have no bounds!

    • S. Morris says:

      08:45am | 12/10/10

      the first victim of mohammadism is free thought. The liberal debate on the niqab/burqa by free thinking liberals is grist to the mill for fundamentalist mohammedans and the creation of an international umma. Your choice is freedom or dhimmism.

      Reply

    • Saskia says:

      08:56am | 12/10/10

      You could be impressed if they did this in an Islamic nation.

      This is just an attempt at 15 minutes of fame and yes the sheep have fallen for it!

      Reply

    • Henry says:

      08:59am | 12/10/10

      Yagur; how about showing the photograph of the young Afghan girl who had her nose cut off for daring to leave the village and attempt an education.

      Enough of this inane self-loathing and mock-protest.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      12:15pm | 12/10/10

      How is that relevant?  In countries like Australia, young girls are free to keep their noses and get educations and wear burqas.  It is people like you who are against some of these freedoms, not those of us who cherish and love our liberty.

      No one should wear a burqa, but neither should we tell them what to wear.  You do not make someone free by determining the choices they make.

    • Marg lennon says:

      09:16am | 12/10/10

      @S>Morris: 
      I play the old muslim Taqqiya myself ... it works for them…
      It can now work for me too. 
      Look at how many Dhimmis there are ...
      I’m a Kafir, but not a dimwit…
      Stop the Islamization of Australia, before it’s too late. 
      Look at Europe’s experiences with Islam. 
      Get real people. 
      Do you really want your granddaughters to be forced to cover their faces? 
      Do not let Sharia Law sneak in any more than it has already ...

      Reply

    • Randal says:

      12:35pm | 12/10/10

      Breath Marg… Breath… It’s ok, there are no reds under your bed nor muslims either and I think you will find Australia is a long way from Sharia Law…

      So relax, unwind and enjoy yourself as life is to short to bottle up such anxiety.

    • BanEdHardyJeansFirst says:

      03:48pm | 12/10/10

      Someone needs a drink…

    • Jon says:

      09:20am | 12/10/10

      It’s an interesting statement, but it is ambiguous. The Burqa is not a fashion statement is a political statement. It is a symbol of Islam, which does not separate religion from the state. It is the state and therefore it should be treated as a political statement.

      The reason we are unable to deal with the absurdities of this religion and others in any rational debate is the result of two decades of Australian Society being stupefied by the contradiction of cultural relativism. As society that embraces the notion that there is no ultimate “right” or “wrong” loses the ability to make any judgments at all. The way in which relativism, including cultural relativism, has permeated modern society is demonstrated in the bizarre ways in which we try to deal with this contradiction. “Tolerance” has mutated to imply unconditional support and agreement for all opinions or lifestyles. However, those who choose to be “intolerant” are not to be supported or agreed with. Tolerance, therefore, becomes an “ultimate good” in and of itself, which is contradictory to the entire idea of relativism. In the same way, heinous crimes such as rape and murder demand a moral judgment, but strict cultural relativism cannot say that such things are always wrong.

      This is whole lot more than a debate about fashion, this is political and some of the apologists know it.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      10:58am | 12/10/10

      My understanding of Sunni Islam, and to a lesser extent the Shi’ites, is that there is a profound separation of religion and state.

    • Dave says:

      12:01pm | 12/10/10

      Article 1 of the constitution of Saudi Arabia

      “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God’s Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God’s prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital”

      Ian, that separation power couldn’t be more profound and clearer, couldn’t it.

    • marley says:

      12:34pm | 12/10/10

      iansand - no, I’m pretty confident you’re wrong on that.  The entire Islamic world is the ummah, and its authority is beyond that of the state.  What you have is not separation of religion and state, but subordination of the latter to the former.  That’s why sharia law is so contentious in the more secular Islamic countries.

    • iansand says:

      12:48pm | 12/10/10

      Nothing there about religious interference in government.  And Saudi Arabia is Wah’habist, which is a whole ‘nother kettle of worms.

      Perhaps if you looked for a statement of how Islam treats governments, rather than how governments treat Islam.

    • Jon says:

      02:23pm | 12/10/10

      It goes back to the Roman era. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” For Christians, there has always been a distinction between church and state. But this is not the case in Islam.

    • marley says:

      03:37pm | 12/10/10

      @iansand - if I remember my history (and I admit to being a little hazy) the Saud’s got the throne on the condition that they would support and further the cause of Wahhabism (which is, after all, only an extreme Sunni sect) so there most certainly is a very close link between religion and state there.  And another very good example would have to be Iran, which is still, for all intents and purposes, under the thumb of the Ayatollahs. 

      And even the more secular Muslim states (Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, even Turkey) fight a constant battle with religious parties that want to impose pure Islamic rule.  So no, I wouldn’t think there is the separation of religion and state - and therein lies the challenge.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      09:21am | 12/10/10

      If articles are going to be youtube based, can we have the funny dog ones.

      Reply

    • I_Exist says:

      09:25am | 12/10/10

      People should be able to wear the burqa- that is there choice. 
      Other people (private sector and public sector workers) should also have the right to choose not to interact with them.

      I do not believe in the existence of god(s) so using religion as a justification to wear something or act a certain way does not sit well with me. 

      I do believe that humans use verbal and non verbal cues to communicate.  Covering up your face impedes communication in a face to face encounter, and I also regard it as being rude.

      Reply

    • Tess says:

      09:40am | 12/10/10

      If the concern is that some people do bad things while wearing particular items of clothing then we also need to ban balaclavas, motorbike helmets, stockings, gloves and funny masks because these have also all been used by criminals to disguise their identity.

      If it’s a bad and repressive thing for a religious order to tell women that they must cover their head by wearing a particular style of garment then we must apply the same standard to Christian nuns and ban the wimple.

      Calls to ban the burqa are pure and simple racism if the same standards are not applied universally.  Don’t pretend they are support for women’s rights or law and order.

      Reply

    • baal says:

      10:17am | 12/10/10

      Tess, not racism because Islam is not a race. Racism is a very serious issue, do not dilute it with your cultural relativism, grrrrr onto the social relativists, grrrrrr. It is discrimination yes but justifiable because the Niqab is counter to french tradition. Allow the French to be French and be all French like, I mean they are French, let the French stuff protect itself in French manner. Over the top but worthwhile.  I do not support the ban, I support mocking the niqab but the burka is fine by me. Leave the burka alone, you can see the face relax.

    • Lorraine says:

      10:40am | 12/10/10

      Tess,
      2 things….. What century are you living in, Nuns don’t wear wimples anymore & secondly, burqua bans are not forms of racism as this mode of dress is not the domain of any one race. It is worn by many races. “Islam” is not a race.

    • HappyCynic says:

      11:55am | 12/10/10

      @Tessa your point is fine but the people who support the ban don’t like being called racists.  They’re prejudiced, ignorant, ill-informed and usually stupid but they aren’t racist, well they aren’t racist against muslims, they might be racist against other races though, we don’t know, but all the ingredients are definitely there smile

      Also they like to argue (falsely) that nuns don’t wear the wimple anymore, so might I suggest using the sheitl instead (Orthodox Jewish women have to cover their hair when they get married)  wink

    • Tess says:

      12:55pm | 12/10/10

      Yes, I mis-spoke when I used the word ‘racism’; either ‘bigotry’ or ‘xenophobia’ would have been more accurate.

      And ‘wimple’ is apparently also too specific and narrow a word, but many nuns still wear a head covering of some sort as part of their religious observance.  Maybe not so much in Australia but certainly in other parts of the Christian world.

      My core point is that if we are going to apply standards they have to be applied equally across the board or not at all.

    • Baal says:

      05:20pm | 12/10/10

      Thankyou for acknowledging that you misused the word racism. I am not a bigot and do not want any silly costumes banned. If they want to wear it then let them. If they are being forced to I hope the people forcing them will be investigated by Police if the women get sick from too little vitamin D.
      I am a queer person and do not think it should be up to the state to define dress codes (many people disaprove of the mardi gras) what I do behind closed doors (I have alot of fun behind closed doors, may it long continue) who I marry (let gays marry, I want me a sugar daddy) etc.
      If you know of women in our fucking country being forced to conform to ancient tradtions against their will then campainst it. However banning the outfit will make the ladies themselves feel opppressed and they will form ranks will thier oppressors.
      I honestly doubt the ban the burqa people care about women, especially muslim women.
      I am Baal, I insist everyone stop being so mean

    • Vera says:

      09:44am | 12/10/10

      Your article is very offensive in its total intolerance of those who would like to ban the burqa. To dump every such person in the anti-abortion basket is intellectually dishonest. I personally am not against abortion but find the burqa offensive,  anti-human really, unsociable and very retro and counterproductive in the 21st century. This notion of choice gets thrown around so much these days and younger people, I suspect, will get on the bandwagon of anyone or anything on the basis of one’s freedom to choose.  But with everything in life, nature, society - you name it- there is a range of acceptable options. As others have pointed out you cannot choose to walk down the street naked or drive at whatever speed you choose (even though many irresponsible drivers do just that now). That is complete and utter nonsense as we know it. With every freedom to choose to do exactly what you want one must - in society - weigh up how your ‘choices’ might impact on others. I want my grandson to have a choice too and if fundamentalist Muslims force their culture onto by stealth - as some have expressed their intent to do -  and make no adaptations to our culture,  he won’t have any choice.  I think that the over-correction or over-tolerance of such an issue displays a perverse form of patronisation. Are we not saying that such people are too uncivilized or ignorant or unsophisticated to adapt to the host country’s culture to some extent at least,  and we have to do all the accommodating?

      Reply

    • Az says:

      09:50am | 12/10/10

      I see it more as the French drawing a cultural line in the sand.

      Multiculturalism can be a fine thing but when its visual presence begins to impinge on its host’s own cultural scenery and attitudes then quite understandably, conflict ensues.

      The Niqab is a very visual reminder for just how different the two cultures are but the French have the prerogative of being the host and if cultural mores are going to be threatened then the French as the hosts, have every right to determine their own cultural predominance.

      Reply

    • HappyCynic says:

      10:58am | 12/10/10

      You object to visual references of other cultures huh?  So I should be banned from wearing a yarmulke?  My culture is very different to the “australian” culture (whatever the hell that is) but my people have lived here since the First Fleet, always separate but a part of this country, we don’t eat pork, we don’t work on Saturdays (or even Friday afternoons), we don’t celebrate the same holidays, we have our own financial laws, divorce laws, and various other laws that supercede Australian civil and criminal law, but the only people you’re brave enough to attack are Muslims.

      Hypocrisy much?  wink

    • Vera says:

      11:09am | 12/10/10

      I agree totally. Another issue is whether multiculturalism is in fact fundamentally a good or achievable thing anyway,  as we always just assume it is. Furthermore, it seems to assume that every aspect of a culture (except our that is!) is worth preserving. For example, is the very primitive practice of infibulation, or sexual mutilation of females,  something which we should also import/allow into Western society? I think not and I was horrified to read recently that the AMA was considering allowing a “symbolic” form of this procedure. That is very offensive and extreme. And anyway, as has happened in so many countries - in the U.S.A, Europe and here even I think - the ‘Christ’ had to be taken out of Christmas because it was offensive to Muslims (and before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I am NOT religious). So why is it when Australians - or people of any other country - are offended by the burqa they are castigated. The logic and the balance in that sort of argument is where?

    • James1 says:

      12:28pm | 12/10/10

      Vera, be offended all you like by the burqa.  That is your right.  I personally am anti-burqa, in that I don’t think anyone should wear them.  I am equally pro-choice, in that I do not think the nanny state should expand their role in determining the national dress code.

      Furthermore, it is you who determines your culture, and whether you value or practice it.  The fact that someone else is different in no way impacts on your culture unless you choose to let it.

      Finally, there is a huge difference between changing laws to further restrict our freedom, and changing laws to extend genital mutilation to females.

    • Randal says:

      12:33pm | 12/10/10

      There you go again Happy Cynic, now you are deriding the Australian culture as “whatever the hell that is” and then claiming superiority with your own.

      So tell me, whilst I applaud the fact that someone from a Jewish culture defends so vehemently the rights of Islam, where does insulting Australian’s sit in your world of respect??

      I think the term “Hypocrisy much” more aptly describes yourself my friend.

    • Jon says:

      01:46pm | 12/10/10

      Yes, Multiculturalism is an experiment that is on going and the results of a harmonious society are not guaranteed. Its invention by left wing sections of the intelligentsia was an over reaction to the WW2. It may work over time, but only if it’s held together by a strong Western secular state with freedom of speech and rights to criticize all cultural and religious practices, based on universal moral ethic. Sadly these freedoms are being diluted and trading away for political expediency. For some reason the political elites seem to have rejected enlightenment values, for example, and have given space and succor to the most potent anti-enlightenment forces.

    • David says:

      10:20am | 12/10/10

      So in a multicultural society we need to be tolerant of religious misogyny? Please read the essay “Is Multiculturalism bad for women? by the late philosopher Susan Moller Okin.

      Reply

    • Zaf says:

      10:26am | 12/10/10

      Niqabitches rock, they got right to the point without being BORING!!!

      Reply

    • jack says:

      10:32am | 12/10/10

      forget going to pakistan or somalia, they would not have been safe in the immigrant suburbs of paris, which i notice they did not visit on camera.

      it is a dilemma when the intolerant demand the toleranceof the west for their intolerance.

      Reply

    • BanEdHardyJeansFirst says:

      03:59pm | 12/10/10

      It is a dilemma when ANYONE who is intolerant demands the tolerance of ANYONE for their intolerance.
      The “west” is, as you can see from the many many posts in this article alone, extremely good at intolerance.

    • marley says:

      07:49am | 13/10/10

      @Ban, etc -Actually, people in general are very good at intolerance.  It’s not a trait unique to the west.

      What the west is good at, is providing a forum in which people can freely express differing opinions without worrying about being jailed, attacked by a mob or having their religious institutions bombed.  Sure, some of the opinions being expressed are intolerant or offensive (your own, for example) - but as long as they’re not inciting violence, so what?

    • Phil Kyson says:

      10:44am | 12/10/10

      As the conservatives like Cory Bernadi with the aid of the rightard press in this country whip up the fear and ignorance for their political ends to ban the burca. We see here the beginnings of how people like Hitler were able to get there power.
      Don’t forget Cory the balaclava and bike helmet are band from banks but doesn’t stop anybody wanting to rob a bank from wearing one, does it, you fools!
      Go for it the Niqabitches, nice legs shame about the face.

      Reply

    • JOHN says:

      11:03am | 12/10/10

      This face-mask argument is, of course as you understand or don’t understand, Yagmur, a sleight-of-hand trick. It enlists sympathy on grounds of “freedom” and “choice” while obscuring the deep fundamentalist issues that are maintained by those who insist on their “rights”. Those can only be exercised in countries where such rights do, in fact, exist. Turn the conterfeit coin and the ugly, maniacal danger of deception and differentiation shows.
      On July 7, 2005, 52 innocent people were blasted into eternity in London and many thousands of others were scarred forever. The perpetrators were exercising their freedom of choice in a society where it is available. Beneath those murders lay an insane belief system (not available to the victims of extremists) that says we can all act as conscience, choice and beliefs allow—as our basic human rights. What you do know full well, Yagmur, is that the mask issue deviously diverts attention from the frightening disregard for all the “rights” of those who were massacred in London.  And PLEASE don’t pretend that indiscriminate, urban terrorism and mass slaughter are really motivated or justified by a war in Afghanistan. They are gross aberrations.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      11:06am | 12/10/10

      To me, this protest actually backfires, because it ridicules the very niqab that it is intending to support.

      To understand what I mean, put yourself into the shoes of muslim man and try to understand why they preach the necessity of their sisters and wives and daughters to wear the niqab/burqa.

      Its to DE-SEXUALISE them! They’re so afraid of the mysterious yin power of female sexuality they want to hide it all away in some dark, ill-fitting garment and never let it be seen in public.

      Is it any co-incidence that it is fundamentalist muslim cultures that are also responsible for the most horrible female circumcision practices in the world? No, its comes from the same desire: to repress female sexuality.

      And what about the practice of stoning alduteresses? Like the other Richard above me noted, it all comes from the same male-dominated muslim mindset of fear and loathing for the expression of female sexuality.

      Which is why this protest, while good fun, actually makes the opposite point to what supporters of the niqab/burqa would want. The 2 girls manage to express themselves in a very sexually alluring way, which is why eric is quite right to say that if they tried this in a muslim country they would probably get raped, because to the barbaric mind of a fundamentalist muslim man, its uncovered meat :(

      Reply

    • marley says:

      12:37pm | 12/10/10

      Well, I think they’re saying both the law and the burqa itself are nonsense.  And I agree with them.

    • S Waller says:

      11:06am | 12/10/10

      Why has noone commented on this: “In this regard, the tired public debate surrounding the burqa echoes the exhausted debates about abortion. Those who want to see the burqa banned are, in some ways, like the anti-choice advocates of the abortion debate. They want to take away the ability for others to make a choice”.

      Are you comfortable with the view that I hold? That is, that it is an offence to kill an innocent, defenseless and helpless person? Or am i just trying to force my view on you? and with the view that it is an offense to compare the choice to wear an article of clothing to an act that detroys the life of someone who has no say?

      Reply

    • Crow says:

      11:19am | 12/10/10

      Would it be reasonable then to ask that any person wearing any such cover-up, as is the law with motor-bike helmets, remove them if they enter a bank, or any other institution where it is essential that faces be seen for a reasonable legal purpose?

      If the item of dress, whatever it is, or whatever you call it, balaclava; or something else, covers the face, then remove it in those places, or do not go in.

      Reply

    • Yon Toad says:

      11:22am | 12/10/10

      If, and it’s a big if, a woman WANTS to walk the streets looking like the Angel of Death, by all means allow her to do so. Her medieval approach to life will go down well with her co-religionistas and the Greens at least.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      11:52am | 12/10/10

      I see that a lot these days, actually.  I think they call it the “Goth” culture.

      And no, I’m not getting it mixed up with emo, since emo is try-hard and Goth is commitment.

    • TheRealDave says:

      11:50am | 12/10/10

      Que hand wringing about how ‘liberating’ it is to walk around in a sack in the Australian summer and listening to Green Day.

      I find it funny to think that some wimmin think that walking around in that ridiculous outfit is somehow ‘liberating’ because it means you aren’t judged on your looks. Here’s a bit of advice girls from an average Aussie bloke:

      If you aren’t ‘hot’ we honestly don’t give a crap what you look like. Wether your pudgy or fat or obese or have a moustache or a huge mole on your nose it doesn’t mean squat - we are far too busy perving on the hot chicks.

      So covering up like a walking letterbox is kinda pointless. We weren’t even looking at you in the first place.

      These ‘outfits’ are, and only ever will be for, men protecting their property. I can’t beleive these militant feminists are too scared to take it on for what it really is. Shame ladies, shame. No balls at all.

      *toodles*

      Reply

    • back of burq says:

      12:12pm | 12/10/10

      I’m sure the same face-covering, security concerns will also apply to a banning in public of wide brimmed hats, big sunnies and faces masked by white sunblock.

      The ultimate irony is that the burqa is an elegant solution to covering up against the sun. if we were all to adopt wearing it while out and about our skin would remain healthy and free of the chemicals in sunblock.

      Reply

    • Shama says:

      01:04pm | 12/10/10

      Duh, its pretty well known that the burqa causes Vitamin D deficiencies. Its not the healthiest garment for all parts of the world, its essentially designed for a desert environment.  Muslim men in fact have rpetty much discarded traditional robes elsewhere.

    • Fatima says:

      04:03pm | 12/10/10

      Actually, the burqa does not cause VIT D deficiency at all. According to doctors, even people who don’t cover up and are always in the sun have vit D deficiencies.

    • Baal says:

      05:31pm | 12/10/10

      Sorry Fati, that is not true unless those people are super fucked up. Normal people who get 10ish minutes of sun are fine. I mean just let the burga fall to the floor and dance naked in the garden and let the sun filter thru the blinds on your lady lumps.
      My mate is a lady muslim that wears the burqa (which I have no probs with) but takes it off at home around the kids and when she reads a book in her living room with the blinds slightly down, Even tho her face to sun exposure would probally be enough.
      Fatima. I do not like your God but I respect your right to lick his divine toes of wonderment, do respect my faith which I shall not reveal or do you assume anyone not bending over for Allah to be naughty.
      True faith Fati does not need to be forced on others, it is like pollen for bees. Natural and the end result is sweet. Your faith seems to have made you bitter fati. I am australian btw so calling you fati is just a custon from my parts wear we shorten names for no real reason.
      Btw, wear what the fuck you like, just do not get uppity when I laugh at grown women dressed as clumsy ninjas.

    • Amy says:

      12:25pm | 12/10/10

      Should’ve done that Women’s and Gender Studies class this semester, Yagmur.

      Reply

    • Mark says:

      12:29pm | 12/10/10

      I guess you favour genital mutiliation and forced marriage as well? Honour killings?  You know,  ” vive la différence”.  Never mind the burqa is used by men to dominate and subjugate women.  .. it’s simply about a mans right to dominate and possess “his property.”  It’s a primitive and sexist form of dress and only a very ignorant, spoilt western woman could argue the importance of so called freedom of expression .  If it was just a woman’s choice I could possibly agree with you, anyone remotely attached to reality however understands it is predominantly a choice by men, imposed on women.

      Reply

    • Smirking Liberal says:

      01:02pm | 12/10/10

      I don’t have a problem with people choosing to wear the Niqab, or the Burqa, so long as it doesn’t impinge on me.

      So if I’m a shopkeeper, or a doctor, and I find it threatening or offensive, like I would if someone came in wearing a motorcycle helmet or a balaclava, then I should be able to tell them to go away without being accused of racism. So long as that ‘s respected, I don’t care what they do.

      Reply

    • Tavia says:

      01:27pm | 12/10/10

      ‘taking away the right for others to make a choice’- I think that there are some choices we do need to take away from people. In fact we already take them away from people: the choice to steal, or to murder, or to abuse someone else. Taking away choice from people isnt always a bad thing.

      Reply

    • Marg Lennon says:

      01:29pm | 12/10/10

      True Story: My biker friend comes to town, goes to HarlyCity near me, rings me and says he’s coming over. Do I wanna ride across the Bridge? I say yes please. When he gets to my place I am wearing the burka. he nearly dies of fright!. he tells me to take it off and gives me a helmet to wear.
      I say Ha Ha John, let’s go like this. I put the helmet OVER my burka, tuck the burka into my jeansand we are away down to SmithSt ...
      We stop at the Post Office and both get off . I keep both things on my head. I say “Count to 5 then follow me in” I go in. A man tells me to please take the helmet off. I do…. but not the burka - people are staring and some are laughing.  Then John comes in…and he too is told to take it off..
      Everyone Fell About Laughing - trudinx!

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      01:42pm | 12/10/10

      All cultures are the same. Just as every organism on the planet exists to fulfill 15 or so core metabolic functions, so do social organisms like cultures exist to fulfill a handful of social functions.

      You break it down like that and there is zero difference between the East and West / Liberal democracy and fundamentalist Islam.

      The only difference is when sophisticated social structures encounter simplistic ones - in the same way that although the core functions of an organism are the same, to a sophisticated, complex organism like man, a crude organism like a jelly fish can seem alien - even repulsive.

      Islam subjugates women simply by ordering they cover them selves with a veil. The West subjugates women through highly complex programming that starts at birth, and turns them into functionaries for the greater cultural machine.

      Our methods are so advanced as to be nearly invisible - Islam’s are not. It’s like comparing a machine gun with a rock. Or a Predator drone with a suicide bomb.

      Just because we don’t force women to cover their bodies does not make us better. Just different. The things Westerners are forced to do are presented to us in such an insidious fashion we don’t even realise we’re being manipulated, not by individual dictators, but by the dictates of society itself.

      The almost ignorant simplicity of Islam, I think, makes it in a way more decent then the social mores of the West. Women represent the biggest challenge to any power structure because they control the means through which power structures are sustained - to create a long lasting power structure women must be contained early and harshly. Islam do this with the veil and with restrictions on what they can and can’t do. We do it through the illusion of freedom, the illusion of choice.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      02:52pm | 12/10/10

      How do you explain the large numbers of Muslim women who choose not to cover their heads.  Or don’t you notice them?

      And what is your position on all those Greek and Italian widows who were forced to wear black because of their culture?

    • S. Morris says:

      03:50pm | 12/10/10

      The illusion of choice? Mmmm that would be the illusion of genital mutilation, paedophilia, honour killing. I’m sorry Zeta your relativistic reasoning is the oxygen that wahabbist mohammadism breathes and flourishes by. I’m sorry but organisms survive and evolve through natural selection and dominance. You have to make a decision which organism you are. As a dhimmi you won’t be given a choice.

    • stephen says:

      07:15pm | 12/10/10

      I dis-agree with your first sentence, (which really should be your conclusion…and an in-correct one).
      That there are various Histories should means the processes of differences are not hierarchical - which you admit in the penultimate paragraph - and that the distinctions of living and seeing others are not necessarily a priori - which you do not admit.
      We see others differently than they - or anyone - sees themselves.
      Simply, the West may be grateful Muslim women, and their men, see themselves as truly harmless and happy ; nevertheless, we have as strong a Culture as any other, and I think we may excuse ourselves if we would want to see a little more of ourselves in each other.

    • Ben81 says:

      01:44pm | 12/10/10

      It’s hard to tell which item of clothing is more ridiculous - the niqab/burqa or the high heel shoes.  Both are insanely dumb for similar reasons, both make me lose respect for the person who has actually chosen to wear that stuff.

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      04:08pm | 12/10/10

      Heels? Are you for real? Dumb? No way! I love my heels and would never swap them for the world. I’d rather have bunions and looking fabulous than wearing Kumfs!

    • Kika says:

      03:55pm | 12/10/10

      OMG, when will this issue end?? The people you see in the photo are wearing Niqab - they are even calling themselves ‘Niqaab’... it’s not a damn burqa. Burqa’s are worn in Afghanistan. I’ve never seen anyone in Australia wearing a Burqa and I’ll eat one if I see one. I see NIQAAB’s around the place. Listen, who cares. It’s a non issue. Why is it offensive? Because the majority of people have little understanding about why someone wears that. Most people say they don’t like them because they don’t like how men oppress women in Islamic culture. Please…. like western women aren’t oppressed by western men. There’s still domestic violence, sexual assault, discrimination, abuse, neglect and disrespect to women right here in this country committed by white men to white women. Most women would wear the Niqaab as a cultural thing. Here’s something funny. I recently returned from a long haul flight via Dubai. I tell you this, those girls in their hijab and niqaabs have the right idea. By the end of the flight all the western girls looked like a right pile of p** whereas the girls in their headscarves looked as perfect and glamourous as they did before they got on the flight!

      Reply

    • Paddy says:

      07:24pm | 12/10/10

      Right Kika, perfect and glamourous? What was perfect and glamourous, their hijab? You obviously joined the Western women in consuming too much alcohol on the flight.

    • Kika says:

      11:07am | 13/10/10

      No actually, I don’t drink when flying. It’s dehydrating and puts you at higher risk of DVT. It appears you have generalised me and put me into the box of ‘western women’. How do you even know I am a ‘western woman’. Flying 22 hours without sleeping generally makes one look like a bag of horse excrement.

    • Kika says:

      11:08am | 13/10/10

      Zac - do you even care about the fate of women here? Why is it so interesting to you how people in overseas countries treat their women. I know plenty of women right here in this country who are white, middle class anglo saxon who are beaten, abused, and treated like dirt by their husbands. Does anyone care? No. Because they look the same as us.

    • NEFFA says:

      05:46pm | 12/10/10

      Lets get one thing straight here. this has happened in FRANCE. for those of you who don’t know, thats a whole other country.
      The french have been working very hard for years to protect their brand. they have enforced that we can only call champagne champagne if it actually comes from champagne. the same with the rest of their wines, cheeses etc.

      This is just them protecting the French way of life, it has nothing to do with Australia and its really none of our business how they choose to live.

      Reply

    • Zac says:

      07:11pm | 12/10/10

      Here is a crash course on the status of women in Islam…. When you finish reading this you will understand the agenda behind burkha…. Not sure why Yagmur is in living in a western country when she could happily live ever after in some Mohamedian land…

      * Islam teaches that Muslim men are superior to women. (Surah 2:228)
      * Islam teaches that women have half the rights of men:

      - In inheritance (Surah 4:11)

      - In court witness (Surah 2:282)

      * Islam considers a wife to be a personal possession of the husband.

      “Fair in the eyes of men is the love of things they covet: women and sons, heaped-up hoards of gold and silver; horses…” (Surah 3:14)

      * Islam commands women to veil themselves always when they are outside their homes:

      “…says to the believing women… that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty” (Surah 24:31)

      * Mohammed teaches that women are lacking in brain and religion:

      “I have not seen any one more deficient in intelligence and religion than women”. (Al-Bukhari 2:541)

      * Mohammed teaches that women are a bad omen:

      “Bad omen is in the women, the house and the horse”. (Al Bukhari 7:30)

      * Mohammed taught that women are harmful to men.

      “After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women”. (Al Bukhari 7:33)

      http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/women-in-islam/western-woman-wanna-be-muslim’s-wife-heres-your-crash-course/

      Reply

    • Stephen Fitzpatrick says:

      11:00am | 13/10/10

      faithfreedom.org? Really? You would admit to reading that site to gain your knowledge of islam? Hilarious. Here is a quote for you:

      The Prophet said, “Religion (Islam) is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by offering the prayers in the mornings, afternoons and during the last hour of the night.” [1:38-O.B.]

    • Bob says:

      01:45pm | 13/10/10

      Interesting.  The burqa is a cultural dress more than a religious one isn’t it?

      If people come here and deliberately wear something that is considered unacceptable to the prevailing culture they can’t expect for anything except to be ostracised. Hiding the face only aggravates the fear of the ‘other’ and will hamper integration and acceptance.

      They have the freedom to wear the burqa, but I have the freedom to not associate with them and to be upset with them for not respecting the prevailing cultural standards for dress in the country in which I was born. I don’t see why I should wholeheartedly accept them with open arms when they don’t seem to respect the cultural norms.

      I understand that different ethnic groups have arrived in Australia before and have generally integrated. Will the same thing happen now or will the incompatibility of culture cause them to form an ethnic enclave which will cause some of the social unrest that we have seen in France and England recently?

      Reply

    • Bee says:

      02:01pm | 13/10/10

      Countries all over Europe are either banning to burqa or discussing banning it. Australia is always soooo far behind the rest of the world.

      Reply

    • ochrebunyip says:

      03:22pm | 13/10/10

      Multiculturalism takes a generation, sometimes two. Consider the various cultures with their attendant religions that have been transplanted in Australia. Often the adults that emigrate do not really assimilate well, language is often a barrier as are customary practices. Mostly the first generation born here assimilate a lot more readily, I believe in no small part due to schooling with other Australians. There were similar issues raised when Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese, Chinese and now Muslims of various cultures. Give the various Muslim people a generation or two and relations will be normalised. Of course it is happening now and we want it solved now, that is human. We just need to practice some patience and some tolerance, after all it worked the previous times we’ve had waves of immigrants and refugees.
      —————————
      The one significant problem with what would otherwise be a routine cultural assimilation process, which Australia is an old hand at, is that we are at war with fundamentalist Islam. The war effort needs chest-thumping about how our enemies are not like us, they eat strange food, believe strange beliefs and dress in strange clothes; however it is somewhat watered down when you have to concede this group of strangers are bad, but this group of strangers, superficially indistinguishable from the first group, are okay. We just have to learn to give headspace to it and with a little practice it is not too hard. For example, we know there have been cases of paedophiles who were also Catholic Priests. No serious commentator suggests therefore all Catholic Priests are paedophiles. The same is true of Muslims and terrorism. However, we are being presented with the Burqa/Niqab issue as if it is in some way a threat to our Australian way of life. If our way of life is so fragile that a garment can bring it crumbling down then we are not made of the stern stuff that has made the bronze aussie legend.

      I’m sure somewhere there are people appalled that our women wear bikinis on the beach. Luckily, they and us live in Australia where it is permitted but not required. As long as we continue to remain resolute that we are not going to adopt the same draconian demands on what women do, or do not, wear we will not sacrifice our identity and our freedoms in the interests of expediency.

      Reply

    • Marg Lennon says:

      09:32am | 17/10/10

      I wear a niqab when I drive through the friday night local booze-bus station. 
      Not because I drink and drive - but because the Law in Australia says I can. 
      I can also wear it into a bank or post office. 
      I have even worn mine into the changing rooms at the localpool. 
      Two weeks ago I wore a niqab under a motorbike helmet into the Westpac Bank in Smith St - I was asked politely to remove the helmet.  LOL
      I did not show more than a slit aroudn my eyes; but that was okay.  rofl.
      Ahh ... the absurdity of tolerance yet again.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 28 May 12 12:01AM

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 27 May 12 10:49PM

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:12PM

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:03PM

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

180

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

27

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

3

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed