Prev
Next

We’re all going on a Sharia holiday

Tory Shepherd

by Tory Shepherd

13 May 05:55am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

41

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

60

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

39

Filed under: Burqa Ban, Indonesia, Islam, Religion, Sharia Law

144 comments

I’m going, for the first time, to somewhere with sharia law. Alcohol is illegal, adulterers can be stoned, public floggings occur, and I’ll have to wear a jilbab (headscarf) and ankle-length skirts.

Girls at school in Aceh, Indonesia. Photo: Getty Images

This isn’t the Middle East, it’s not Saudi Arabia or Iran - it’s our close neighbour, Indonesia. Specifically, it’s Aceh, that beleaguered Indonesian province still recovering from the Boxing Day tsunami.

Sharia law can mean all sorts of things. Muslims believe it is God’s law, as derived from the teachings of the Koran and the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed.

Like jihad, it can be benevolent or malevolent, because it is an all too human creation.

In some places, sharia law is used to justify horrendous penalties for “immoral” behaviour. It’s a law that clashes often with common ideas of decency, fairness, and gender equity.

In Aceh it is not as severe as elsewhere, because it is always a matter of interpretation - and Indonesia has a long history of moderation when it comes to Islam.

But there have been public canings, boys and girls are not allowed to hang out together, tight pants are banned.

What is really concerning, though, is that it appears to be getting stricter.

Parliament has strengthened the laws, so now adulterers can be stoned to death, there are harsher penalties for drinkers and gamblers, and the sharia police are being more enthusiastic about finding and punishing transgressors.

Indonesia is as diverse in religion as it is in landscape, food, and culture. The archipelago, home to more than 240 million people, encompasses Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam.

But a surge in fundamentalist Islam could start to tip the precarious balance. If it gains a stronger foothold in our region, that has frightening implications. Links between fundamentalism and terrorism exist.

The Federal Government is likely today to announce new measures to tackle terrorism, and will hopefully be looking to work closely with Indonesia on that. But there are also human rights issues to be considered.

Dealing with something like sharia law, and its complex blend of social, religious, cultural, political and legal implications, can seem a little too hard.

As an issue it steals less of our politicians’ attention than the simple black and white of terrorism, but it is every bit as important to the stability of our region. We have an obligation to learn more about Islam, and about all religions, both in Australia and overseas.

We need to forge a more sophisticated relationship with Asia, particularly with Indonesia, if we are to have any impact on terrorism, if we are to stop asylum seekers dying en route to Australia.

That means we need to engage, and through that engagement reinforce the rights of women to go where they choose, to speak to whom they choose, to dress how they choose. Rights to an education, to healthcare.

There are many ways we can do that - human rights and civil liberties organisations work hard on the ground to deal with women’s issues, though often they could use better coordination and support.

We should also be leading by example. Which we do, most of the time.

But then you get something like Senator Cory Bernardi’s call to ban the burqa - a call he says is echoed by the majority of the population.

All of a sudden Australia could be seen to be saying that women should not have the right to dress as they choose, that we want police to be enforcing a dress code.

All of a sudden Australia stops looking like a beacon of freedom, and starts looking more like an oppressive society.

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?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

144 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • biff says:

      07:28am | 13/05/10

      Tory, we all dream of hopping in the time machine and visiting earlier times. Enjoy your trip to the 7th century. Send us a postcard.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      09:28am | 13/05/10

      Actually biff, 7th Century Sharia, in fact Sharia between the 7th and 13th centuries, was a period of moderation and progressive religious jurisprudence.

      Even 19th Century Sharia was comparably progressive compared to the last 50 years.

      What we today know as ‘Zany Sharia’ or ‘Bug F*** Crazy Sharia’ or to the scholars just plain old ‘Contemporary Sharia’ is where we see the more toxic policies.

    • Seamus says:

      08:28am | 13/05/10

      If people wish to live by a custom where the wearing of a burqa is the norm then let them stay in, or emigrate to, countries where it is the custom to do so.  It is not the custom in Australia.  People wishing to adopt our country as their home of choice should adopt our traditions and customs.  If they don’t wish to do that, it’s simple - don’t come here.  As an Australian I get sick and tired of being told how I should be kowtowing to the wishes of non-Australians.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      09:41am | 13/05/10

      The wearing of the burqa is a tiny part of Sharia. To define their religion and culture because of a head scarf is like defining Judaism because of a funny hat.

    • Sherekahn says:

      09:56am | 13/05/10

      Agreed!  In fact, our Government should vet migrants and refugees to tell them plainly that “not conforming to our social norms” and laws will cancel their Citizenship in the future and get them to sign such an agreement.

    • Zaf says:

      10:11am | 13/05/10

      oh fine, but I REFUSE to eat party pies.

    • Adam MacLeod says:

      11:31am | 13/05/10

      And whether you’re from India, Packistan, England or New Zealand you must immediately denounce support for that country’s cricket team and get behind Ricky Ponting and the boys.  wink  End of story.

    • James1 says:

      11:42am | 13/05/10

      Seamus and Sherekahn,

      In your proposed cultural utopia, who would decide what constitutes a social norm?  And how are you kowtowing to anyone?  Is someone forcing you to wear a burka?

    • Helen says:

      02:00pm | 13/05/10

      Um, they don’t wear the burqua in Indonesia. They might wear a headscarf, if that. Unbelievable, the frothing and hyperventilating that is going on about this custom which hardly has any impact on this country and its neighbours.

    • Yitzchak says:

      03:40pm | 13/05/10

      So judging by your comment I also shouldn’t be allowed to wear a yarmulke (jewish skullcap) in Australia either, or keep kosher just because the majority of “Australians” don’t do this.  This is despite the fact that the people of my religion can trace their roots in Australia back to the First Fleet?  People like jews and muslims and hindus and buddhists and others chose to live in this country not for its ideas about “culture” but because of its freedom to practice their religion without persecution.  I’m allowed to take time out of work to pray 3 times a day, I get jewish festivals off and I’m allowed to leave work early on Fridays.  I can do all this without living under the constant threat of death or imprisonment or expulsion and yet I and others including muslims all contribute to Australia and have done for generations, you can’t tell us to “go home” (some of us haven’t had a “home” to go back to for nearly 2000 years) just because our dresscodes don’t conform to your narrow minded beliefs.  As soon as you do you become as bad, if not worse, than countries who strictly enforce sharia law.

    • T.Chong says:

      04:41pm | 13/05/10

      Yitzchak , agree . Totally. The bigotry here is surprising, even for Punch.
      PS Righters, who gets to decide who is a dinky-di , true Blu Ozzie .  3 generations or more?  I’ll be fine cobber, but I wouldnt hold out much hope for many who Punch here.

    • Lauren says:

      08:22pm | 13/05/10

      I must’ve missed something, since when was it the custom of Australia to not have a choice in what you want to wear? Has ‘fair go’ died off too?

    • Andrew says:

      11:14pm | 13/05/10

      By “non-Australians” I assume you include Australian-born citizens who choose to practice Islam? Your prohibition on religious coverings would apply equally to immigrants, tourists, students and citizens I assume? And the same would no doubt apply to Jews wearing yarmulkes (they should “stay in” Israel where it’s “customary”) or the hats worn by the Orthodox, Sikhs (move to Punjab or stop wearing the turban - and get a haircut!) etc. And why restrict it to clothes? We shouldn’t kowtow in other ways that aren’t “customary” - no more kosher or halal butchers. They must be forced to eat the same meat as we do - go to Woolies or go home. Get some pork on your fork - it’s customary for Aussies to tell people what to eat. And Yitzchak, the 3 times daily praying will definitely need to stop - it’s not customary even if you practice it on your own time and in the privacy of your home. We only tolerate it on Sundays, so you’ll have to move synagogue by 36 hours - and call it “church” as is customary, dammit! Now, have we got rid of everyone bothering you Seamus?

    • Robert of Rural SA says:

      11:46pm | 13/05/10

      Seamus the original Australian mode of dress was a breech clout 7 not much else so on your reasoning all those pommies who turned up in 1788 should of got their gear off & followed the local custom. Just celebrate the difference mate, I strongly doubt that they want to convert you

    • London says:

      05:51pm | 23/09/10

      I dont think people should have to adopt the typical Australian traditions like footy or drinking lots of beer etc. Infact, some of these typical traditions makes Auatralia look bad. But I agree that wearing a burqa is not custom and it definitely should not be allowed in certain cases, for example, passport photos - if you come to this country you must accept the rules and follow them!

    • Barry says:

      08:40am | 13/05/10

      The burqa is a hideous symbol of repression.

      Banning it would also be a largely symbolic act, a token gesture in defence of our culture.

      I can understand that banning a type of clothing is inconsistent with the freedom enjoyed by western societies, but I see this as a small price to pay.

      Reply

    • Comedian says:

      09:49am | 13/05/10

      Aren’t most nuns covered, have you looked at a picture Mary Mackillop?

    • Sherekahn says:

      10:03am | 13/05/10

      I believe, Only the Full-Face Burqa is offensive.  One must see the eyes to look into peoples souls!
      The basic head covering actually shows the beauty of a woman to me.

    • Eric says:

      10:03am | 13/05/10

      @Comedian: Nuns don’t cover their faces. The burqa and the niqab are full face masks.

    • Sean says:

      10:27am | 13/05/10

      Comedian, if you were trying to be funny..FAIL. Otherwise learn to google, a burqa like the niqab is a complete face covering, nuns don’t hide their face from view and in many cases don’t wear religious clothing in public

    • notsurprised says:

      10:46am | 13/05/10

      Comedian, what century do you live in? She died over 100 years ago and in Australia nuns do not cover their heads or faces.

    • shabangabang says:

      11:30am | 13/05/10

      Hear hear, Barry. Thats why my next holiday destination is France; a place where the burqa is soon to be banned.
      Who ever would of thought that the cheese eating, wine swilling surrender monkeys would have been the first to act. Vive La France.

    • James1 says:

      11:44am | 13/05/10

      While there may no longer be burkas, France is still packed with French people…

    • Mackellar says:

      12:40pm | 13/05/10

      Compromise that freedom, and where do you draw your line in the sand? What other non-negotiable liberties do we trade away as a small price?

    • Joan says:

      12:55pm | 13/05/10

      I`d like to see pro-burqa for Australia -Dr Death Rudd don a black burqa for his next photo shoot at a hospital

    • mel says:

      01:40pm | 13/05/10

      as someone who has a relative how is a num, or sister as they like to be called, i can tell you what she wears. her general clothing is a shirt and shirt combo usually in navy, her head is uncovered and the only thing on her face are glasses. when she is gardening she drags out a pair of slacks. the only time she covers her head is during prayer times.

    • Helen says:

      02:03pm | 13/05/10

      It wouldn’t be a symbolic act for a woman from a conservative subgroup who is pressured into wearing it by her family or too agoraphobic to go cold turkey without it straight away, and therefore gets fined and/or imprisoned.
      Of course it’s a small price to pay - for you. As a person who won’t be personally affected.

    • Eric says:

      08:43am | 13/05/10

      “All of a sudden Australia could be seen to be saying that women should not have the right to dress as they choose, that we want police to be enforcing a dress code.”

      Not really, since the burka ban would apply to men as well. It’s simply unacceptable in our society for anyone to walk around in public with a full face mask. Those who wish to do so are free to move elsewhere.

      Reply

    • Comedian says:

      10:38am | 13/05/10

      Actually ERIC the burqa and niqab only cover the hair the ones you see are an extremist version or attitude. Traditionally its hair only and most are so my arguments about nuns still stand..

    • James1 says:

      11:45am | 13/05/10

      On my morning bike ride to work, I regularly see men and women with their faces covered against the cold.  Should we ban that as well? (I intend this as a genuine question, and not a facetious one.)

    • Jones says:

      12:56pm | 13/05/10

      Those cold people, like myself (a motorcycle rider) are required to uncover their faces when in a public place, place of business, or when asked to do so by an appropriate law enforcement agent.  People who wear face coverings for religious purposes seem to be exempt from that (whether it’s the law or otherwise).

    • James1 says:

      01:15pm | 13/05/10

      Thanks Jones.  Your response raises another question - where do we draw the line on what constitutes a public place?  The paths I ride are indeed very public, with many pedestrians present.  Should those cyclists be banned from covering their faces? (Again, real, not facetious, questions.)

    • Jones says:

      01:34pm | 13/05/10

      As I see it, the issues you’re raising are very central to this whole debate.  I used to live in a ski resort in a very cold part of the world and everyone would wear those face mask things.  It’s fine to do that, it’s fine to cover your face when you’re walking through the (public) park or on the (public) footpath.  And yet, according to some, it’s not fine to wear a Burqa in those same public places.

      When you get to a building and go inside, everyone else takes their face coverings off.  This is partly because we have to, but mostly because it’s just plain polite.  I once saw a motorcyclist walk into a newsagent and buy a scratchie with his helmet on and I was disgusted - the man showed no respect for the woman serving him at the counter.  People wearing Burqas don’t take their headgear off, which I personally find rude and offensive (even if they don’t mean it to be that way).

      In some parts of Italy, face coverings are banned in public places (I am not sure if that’s all face coverings or just religious ones).  Recently a husband and wife were fined because she was on a footpath wearing a Burqa and a Police Officer asked her to uncover her face so he could check her ID.  Her husband refused to let her.  An argument ensued and husband and wife were both arrested.

      Some people think that’s how things should go here.  I suppose my own view is that these things should be treated in exactly the same way as helmets or cold weather gear.  Wear them if you want, but you must take them off indoors in a public place or place of business, and if a law enforcement agent requests, you must remove it for ID purposes.  (Although that doesn’t account for the general question of rudeness).

    • James1 says:

      02:29pm | 13/05/10

      A well reasoned response Jones.  In some contexts it is particularly important to remove facial coverings, such as in banks.  From my perspective, a bank has every right to ask customers to remove facial coverings - if customers elect not to, then they can use an ATM and as a result of their choices, expect to be denied entry to some places.

      There must be some kind of balance here between liberty, and responsibility.  I just hope we are confident and mature enough as a nation to effectively negotiate it.  Some of the responses here do not make me optimistic.

    • Eric says:

      06:03pm | 13/05/10

      Comedian, you are wrong. The hijab is a full-body and face covering with a small slit for the eyes. The burqa is similar, but has a lace patch over the eyes so even those are covered up.

      You should get your facts straight before you attempt to “correct” anyone else. Google is your friend.

    • Andrew says:

      11:25pm | 13/05/10

      One question for the people saying Islamic women should not be allowed the choice of wearing traditional dress (compulsion / coercion would be another story, but could be adequately dealt with by existing discrimination law I would have thought): Those saying it should be a condition of driving / going to a bank / walking down the main street if harassed by the cops etc - what’s wrong with a simple SIGNATURE as proof of identity? I don’t have to carry photo ID in case a cop hassles me - I simply have to give my name on demand. If a woman is not carrying a photo ID, how would taking off the veil help? Why can’t the bank simply get her to sign a withdrawal form and check the signature like they did for 100 years?

    • Sarah says:

      09:11am | 13/05/10

      Seamus, spot on. Tory, I thought you had a point to make, and then it all turned to garbage. You do realise you’re saying it’s ok for you to bow down to the regulations of a country whose laws you think might perhaps be inconsistent with modern freedoms, so long as those people who come here don’t have to follow our own regulations? The more we bow down to people to who want to change our very way of life, the more Australia ceases to exist, and we lose our freedoms also. It is coming, and it is only a matter of time.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      11:48am | 13/05/10

      I would like to imagine that we hold ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to freedom and liberty than does Aceh or Saudi Arabia.  If you want to follow their lead, you are perfectly entitled to leave our wonderful free nation…

      You can not remove freedom to support freedom - otherwise the terrorists win (with thanks to Stephen Colbert).

    • T.Chong says:

      04:44pm | 13/05/10

      Sarah, what a load of crud. Were about to be overwhelmed by Islam are we ? Please back up this claim.

    • Gardenia says:

      05:35am | 14/05/10

      I thought freedom of religion IS Australian?
      Has anyone who criticises Muslims ever tried immigrating to another country? I moved to the USA and geez, there’s some things I’m still trying to make sense of: the obsession with guns and religion, the anti-gay hysteria, love for 1L cups of soft drink drunk by midday etc etc.
      So different to Aussie values but I’m trying to be more tolerant of their point of view in the interests of assimilating. It’s a VERY challenging process and our cultures are considered similar!
      So try putting the shoe on the other foot once in awhile. It’s definitely interesting if you consider yourself an open-minded person…

    • Sean says:

      09:15am | 13/05/10

      Guess what Tory we already have regulations around what people can and can’t wear, so get off your high horse and do some research.

      Try walking around nude or topless (if you are a woman) and see what happens

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      01:00pm | 13/05/10

      Post modern relativism, Sean. Yes, nearly every culture has dress standards. However having dress standards or conventions does not always symbolise a chauvinistic or a repressive culture.

    • Shona says:

      09:28am | 13/05/10

      I’m in two minds about the various kinds of all-covering clothing. On one hand, the idea of talking to someone when I can’t see their face is more than a bit creepy. On the other hand, I’d like to see more cloth and less flesh in modern western clothing. I’ve lost track of the number of girls I’ve seen in ‘skirts’ narrower than my belt, not a good look. Perhaps its time for veils to return to fashion?

      Reply

    • ChrisG says:

      09:36am | 13/05/10

      So Senator Bernardi wants action against a belief system that forces a significant number of women to cover their heads and necks and legs, and wear ‘modest’ over-garments to hide their curves, and that promotes a restricted sense of self for women - would that fight include action against traditional catholic religious orders, and make it illegal for religious sisters to wear such apparel in public?

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      11:58am | 13/05/10

      And the Exclusive Brethren?  They are culturally different to me, and I for one do not want to be forced to kowtow to extremists.  They even encourage their members to break Australian laws.

    • Martin G says:

      09:39am | 13/05/10

      The culture war has already started - extreme muslims have gained a foothold in Britain and are getting louder in their calls for Sharia Law there. Australia may be in the same position in 5-10 years.

      Banning the burqa will, ironic as it sounds, send a message that Australia is a western society built upon freedom, not oppression.

      Enjoy your trip, Tory. Stay safe.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      12:00pm | 13/05/10

      That is not a message of freedom.  It says that, much like in Saudi Arabia, people are free to dress however they like within a strictly defined context.  That is the opposite of freedom.  Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    • Intolerable says:

      09:40am | 13/05/10

      Your comment: Australia should stop accepting anyone with a belief system that accepts Sharia Law.  It is already an affront that some Sharia Law is accepted here regarding marriage and it is the thin edge of the wedge before other laws will be accepted.  Everyone in Australia should be judged by our legal system or it won’t be long before other ludicrous ideas from archaic belief systems will be accepted.  It seems that Australia suffers from an over abundance of tolerance at the expense of all ordinary Australians and it is time to review just what we want to accept in this day and age.  As many of these believers are not tolerant of us, why should we be tolerant of them?

      Reply

    • Mickey Maoist says:

      09:43am | 13/05/10

      Burkas are so damn hot and kinky.  Phwoar!!!

      Reply

    • Realist and Rationalist says:

      09:45am | 13/05/10

      TRake off your rose coloured glasses, get your head out of the sand and travel bythe Tardis into the 21 Century before criticising Austrailans, who are some of the the most tolerant in the world.  Which is why so many immigrants and refugees want to come here.  It is time the Charter of Refugees was revisited as manyh of the Clauses take away Australia’s independence to act on just who can come here.

      Reply

    • Ellis Wyatt says:

      09:57am | 13/05/10

      Kemal Ataturk’s great enduring achievement was the creation of the secular modern Turkish State, which included banning religious attire.  Ataturk also introduced universal adult suffrage and I suspect there may be a nexus there.

      Reply

    • Paul says:

      10:04am | 13/05/10

      In Australia wearing a garment that covers all of your facial features is a security risk and also an anti-social mechanism that isolates people that we have welcomed to Australia from the rest of the community.

      I wouldn’t go to a Muslim country and expect them to fit in with what I would consider to be my cultural norms, and I nor would I expect them to. The same goes here.

      When in Rome…

      Reply

    • Stefan Morris says:

      10:39am | 13/05/10

      In my experience of living in London for 20 years there were once very few burqas and now there are total muslim suburbs which are no go to outsiders and where sharia is practiced alongside democratic process. Indeed there are politicians doing deals for votes with muslim seats to introduce sharia to run alongside democratic and judicial process. A mosque is not a church with a funny shaped roof it is a political statemant of will and intent. The desire to wear a burqa is not a fashion statement it is the thin end of the wedge of islamic fundamentalism within the state. Think of cuckoos.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      10:40am | 13/05/10

      Agreed that this isn’t a simple matter of being tolerant of other cultures.
      Certains sections of the Muslim population are demanding that Sharia Law, a system that foregoes legal and even basic human rights, be allowed to take precedent over our own Legal system.
      Personally I don’t understand why a person would want to move to a country where deplore the culture and its laws in the first place.
      I have no problem with who/what a person worships, or even who/what they decide to have sex with, as long as they respect and adhere to this country’s code of laws.

      Reply

    • Justin says:

      10:55am | 13/05/10

      So Tory, why won’t you be getting around Aceh in a mini-skirt, revealing top & no headdress? You could show them what a beacon of freedom looks like.

      Reply

    • martinX says:

      11:56pm | 15/05/10

      Hang on a minute - if she wears a miniskirt, she’ll be showing them a beacon of freedom? Or is it that if she goes topless she’ll be showing two beacons of freedom? I’m confused. Pics please. Lots.

    • Ryan says:

      10:59am | 13/05/10

      Hold a second, we have to submit to full naked body scans (including our children) due to the actions of certain elements who live by this Sharia Law you tout and you think that banning the burqa is all of a sudden oppressive?
      There have been cases of this so-called religious symbol being used by terrorist MEN to escape capture by the authorities, so much for it being a women only religious symbol when it gets used to commit crimes.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      12:03pm | 13/05/10

      By the same token, a few people have used knives to rob service stations and stab people.  We should immediately ban all knives everywhere to end this trend of kitchen tools being misused. 

      Sometimes the solution is worse than the problem.

    • Justin says:

      12:19pm | 13/05/10

      Actually James1, the carrying of knives in public is banned. You are free to dice your tomatoes in the kitchen though, so a full ban on knives isn’t needed.

      That seems like a reasonable balance.

    • James1 says:

      12:45pm | 13/05/10

      I would extend the same courtesy to Muslim women Justin.  Just because some men choose not to follow the rules, does not mean we should ban a particular mode of dress.

      That seems like a reasonable balance to me as well.

    • George says:

      11:00am | 13/05/10

      ‘When in Rome’ might sound simplistic, but it’s actually damn succinct way of stating the facts without getting stuck in a political corner. Most of us wouldn’t go to an overtly Muslim country and stumble around the streets swigging from a bottle of Jack’s. Not just for fear of the consequences, but also because we know that to do so is not culturally acceptable. We don’t allow people to enter banks wearing full-face motorcycle helmets; doing the same in an office building would cause consternation, bemusement and fear, and most likely lead to a physical conflict, because enforcing one-way visual communication is viewed culturally as a direct challenge to the way we are accustomed to communicating. You’d effectively be saying ‘I’ll talk to you on my terms - I can see you, but you can’t see me - and you’re at a social disadvantage. Deal with it, sucker.’ Perhaps as a multi-cultural society we could be expected to adapt to some very different sets of cultural customs, as we have with some other cultures. But few past adaptations have expected this degree of change at such a basic level of human interaction.

      That aside, I also have an inherent problem with the ingrained sexual discrimination that women can be required - by men - to wear the full face covering. Meanwhile, those same men can wear whatever they choose. I accept that ,as per Four Corners recently, some women do choose whether or not to wear the burqua or niquab. But in Sharia-dominated cultures - in which a link with misogyny is inextricable - I cannot believe there is such choice. In secular Western societies, the individual human right should always come ahead of the religious right. One country cannot realistically and practically have two sets of laws operating concurrently and expect them to fuse. Aside from some tinkering with traditional Aboriginal laws, we view any push for an entire overhaul of our systems of law and order and social order as an affront to our way of life. Any attempt to impose Sharia law in Australia is effectively tantamount to secession, or perhaps treason and on that basis, completely unacceptable. I hate to use the term ‘I’m not racist, but…’, but if anyone tries to tell me to put down my beer and put a burqua on my wife, I’ll put down my beer and pick up the nearest shovel, pool cue or anything necessary to defend the basic tenets of our way of life.

      Reply

    • thatcherschild says:

      11:26am | 13/05/10

      I think we are coming at this whole issue from the wrong angle - essentially we are dealing with an end product when we should be focusing on the manufacturing process, so to speak.
      The women who wear the full face covering come from places where this form of dress is all you see, and is considered totally normal.
      However, once they come here they stand out, which kind of defeats the point of wearing it, to stop people looking at them - especially men.
      What I want to know is when these people do arrive are they actually told anything about Oz, are they mentored by other folk in the community to help them understand the country theyre in?
      I know in Holland all migrants are shown a DVD depicting life there, and basically told if they feel they wont fit in they will be assisted to go somewhere compatible,
      Do we have anything similar here?
      Is anyone helping to educate migrants about our basic equality laws, our way of life, community expectations etc?
      And as for the idea of fining/banning women from wearing the full cover, has it occured to anyone that if a woman is wearing it because she is being forced to we are doing nothing but punishing her twice for something out of her control.
      She would cop it from the law if it was illegal, then undoubtedly from her husband or the men in her community that have the full control.
      So instead of legislating against the cover, how about some form of obligatory citizenship classes to help people as they arrive, as opposed to punishing them for not fitting in.

    • notsurprised says:

      11:07am | 13/05/10

      “All of a sudden Australia stops looking like a beacon of freedom, and starts looking more like an oppressive society.” - Tory, what an unrealistic and ridiculous statement. Sharia law is far more oppressive than the laws of Australian society. Allow me to ask you a few questions. Do you enjoy a glass of wine or beer at a family picnic or your favourite cafe sitting at a comfortable outside table? Do you enjoy the relative freeedom of being viewed as equal among your peers and friends. Do you support the death penalty in any form? It is the laws in Australia, admittedly not perfect but the best we currently have, that allow us to enjoy freedom the way we do.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      12:07pm | 13/05/10

      All steps along a continuum notsurprised.  Today it is burkas, tomorrow, who knows?

      As the priest once said
      They came for the communists, but I said nothing.  I was not a communist.
      They came for the socialists, but I said nothing.  I was not a socialist.
      They came for the trade unionists, but I said nothing.  I was not a unionist.
      They came for the Jews, but I said nothing.  I was not a Jew.
      When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything…

    • notsurprised says:

      01:27pm | 13/05/10

      Fair enough James, but let me ask you this question.
      What is more important, upholding the equality of both men and women in Australian society to the detriment of disallowing certain attire, or giving carte blanche to wear anything to the detriment of equality between people including men and women? Agreed, the Nazi’s should have been stopped earlier, but know that the Australian legal system and government is far from the same. The equality of all individuals under Australian residency is one of the fundamental principles of this country and it is even specified quite clearly by the government.

    • James1 says:

      02:33pm | 13/05/10

      I would posit that they are separate issues notsurprised.  Eliminating discrimination against women will not be achieved by proscribing particular modes of dress - all that does is discriminate against the women who choose to dress that way. 

      Also, Weimar Germany was a liberal democracy…

      In any case, I lose for invoking Godwin’s Law.

    • Darcy Dunbar says:

      11:09am | 13/05/10

      If it’s good enough for Turkey to ban the full burka, why not Australia?

      Reply

    • Henry says:

      11:11am | 13/05/10

      Hey Tory, whats wrong with Cory’s call?  Against free speech? 

      90% of these women DO NOT choose to wear these hideous garments and the other 10% are too afraid to admit that.

      No woman would choose to cover up like that.  You need to look a bit deeper and stop being afraid to speak out against backward oppression.  Most of the Western media are too scared to criticize anything Muslim.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      11:43am | 13/05/10

      That’s a ridiculous, made up statistic and your intermitent use of capitals does nothing to lend it credibility.

    • Sally Hawkins says:

      04:00pm | 13/05/10

      No woman would ever want to look like that.  Its just raw oppression in its most pure form.

      So cowardly of you Tory to even begin to compare the widespread abuse of women with Bernardi’s quite logical call.

      Shame.

    • Amber says:

      04:18pm | 14/05/10

      I agree with Henry, those women are repressed. No woman would want to shut off herself from society in that way.

    • fred says:

      11:12am | 13/05/10

      Tory I appreciate your article on a topic marred by ignorance and bigotry, and your sane and timely call for more understanding. The Senator with the cute “different” name does not know the difference between the Afghan burqa, the hijab, the niqab, the scarf as worn in Aceh.The images used by the “popular press” to accompany the ban the burqa stories are consistently of the pale blue burqa as worn in Afghanistan and I have yet to see one in Australia.
      It seems that most Australians including many commentators are not aware that the head covered Muslim women we see in our shopping centres - a relatively small number - may in fact be wealthy Saudi Arabian tourists or most likely given nearly half a million students here, overseas fee paying students, their country’s most talented young people, their future leaders.  Let us welcome them, engage them in conversation and show them our tolerant ways based on universal human rights, women and men with equal rights, equal standing before the law, equal opportunities.

      Reply

    • worried says:

      11:13am | 13/05/10

      There is an easy way to predict the future:

      Just follow someone else’s path.

      USA’s present could be Australia’s future. Allow strict fundamentalism and you’re probably allowing strict terrorism.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      12:17pm | 13/05/10

      That is a terrible way to predict anything.  Massive fail, worried.

      I could just as easily say that Papua New Guinea is Australia’s future.  Prove me wrong.

    • Averill says:

      11:18am | 13/05/10

      I thought that in this country the State laws and the Churches laws were to be kept separate?  “Separation of Powers”.  To me it seems that Islam is exactly the opposite of this.  Therefore those who break our laws should be punished.

      Reply

    • Adam MacLeod says:

      11:29am | 13/05/10

      Is it illegal to wear a balaclava?

      If not, then this is surely a double standard.

      Reply

    • Comedian says:

      11:29am | 13/05/10

      To save me from replying to each person this goes out to all who went on the attack of my previous remarks “Aren’t most nuns covered, have you looked at a picture Mary Mackillop?” (Sean, notsurprised)..

      1st .  I was replying to what Barry said “The burqa is a hideous symbol of repression”..trying explain that its not exactly correct that Christian nun wear it as a sign of modesty as most Muslims do.

      2nd.    burqa like the niqab are traditionally hair only and I don’t care if you Google otherwise

      3rd     I really don’t see what the connection is to which century you live in because until today their nuns from all over the world who still cover up their hair….Google that one if you like

      4th   go to go the laxative of coffee is kicking in.

      Reply

    • Samantha says:

      12:03pm | 13/05/10

      Comparing Nuns with everyday women when it comes to this issue is just plain stupid, Nuns are women who have chosen to practice a faith and therefore accept what comes with that, in some cases that includes modest clothing that cover their shape and hair.  They have not simply been born female and as a result forced to comply with a law they have no say in.

      Also if you knew much about the Catholic church you would know that it is not actually mandatory for them to dress this way and most don’t. Either way the point is they have full control over whether or not they dress this way or in deed join the church in the first place.

    • Comedian says:

      12:23pm | 13/05/10

      Samantha says:  “Comparing Nuns with everyday women when it comes to this issue is just plain stupid”.... No it’s not, your whole reply was, I comparing the act and what it stand s for..

      “Nuns are women who have chosen to practice a faith and therefore accept what comes with that”...correct just like Muslim women I’m glad you agree (although I know you don’t understand a dam thing I’m say, so catch up)

      “They have not simply been born female and as a result forced to comply with a law they have no say in.”...it s actually a choice, although there are extremist out there.


      “Also if you knew much about the Catholic church”.... X altar boy sister (someone rule about hitting on nuns is forbidden)

      “would know that it is not actually mandatory for them to dress this way and most don’t.”....some sister hoods its actually mandatory but no matter as I said before its also a choice for Muslim women

      In conclusion don’t call me stupid ok budgie brain..

    • marley says:

      01:01pm | 13/05/10

      Re point 2 - Well, you know, I’ve been to Peshawar, and into the Swat Valley, and a few other areas around the Pakistani-Afghan frontier, where the few women seen in public do wear burkas over their day-to-day clothing.  And these burkas are most definitely not merely head coverings.  They are a head to toe, shuttlecock-shaped garment (or set of garments) which completely cover the face, with a fine mesh over the eyes to enable the wearer to see where she’s going. 

      Not all Afghan or Pakistani women wear burkas of course, but I’ve seen them often enough to know the difference between a burka and a mere shalwar kameez with a scarf.

      Islam requires men and women to dress modestly, which means covering ankles to neck, and the arms.  For women, it usually means a head covering.  No where does it require a burka.  That’s a tribal thing.

    • Eric says:

      06:06pm | 13/05/10

      Comedian, you are wrong about burqa and niqab.

      You are in no position to lecture anyone, as you have shown your ignorance repeatedly.

    • tyu says:

      11:34am | 13/05/10

      I think we’re mature enough now for groups in our country to live under the legal system they desire, i.e. If Muslims want to wear the burqa and have sharia law, that’s their choice. Christians should be able to live inder the legal system that they choose and so on. This would make for a very exciting and dynamic country, and the Australian people would be truly free - almost like a return to the glorious days of the Wild West.

      Reply

    • Ajent says:

      02:57pm | 13/05/10

      Only within the limits of the laws of the country they live in! Here lies the problem, moderate sharia law can co-exist with more western legal societies like australia, but many of the punishments applied in the more extreme sharia law are crimes under Australian law.

      I will never support a legal system that prescribes the death penalty for adultery - particularly when the evidence seems to be that it is a crime that is visited mostly on women, and caning and beatings that leave people with severe injuries for other crimes.

      There needs to be a reasoned response to this. The practisers of Sharia law need to operate within the confines of what is acceptable. But there is room for negotiation. Our legal system operates side-by-side with Indigenous law in parts of Australia - where certain customary punishments etc have been negotiated and are applied. The same can be done with Sharia, but there does need to be a line in the sand about what is acceptable in our communities as an expression of religion and culture.

      There are places where covering from top to toe may be a security risk, and the wearers of these garments may need to accept that there will always be a level of suspicion leveled at them. They made have to face closer scrutiny because of this, but this can be done in a sensitive way.

      The real issue for me with Indonesia is that it is a diverse religious country with a long history of tolerance is now under threat of becoming a Muslim state where all other religions are persecuted and everyone is expectesd to conform with the standards laid out in sharia law - a law which many people do not recognise as valid. If Muslims wish to impose sharia law on themselves it is one thing, to impose it on non-muslims is totally different. Indonesia is now seeing repression of its cultural history, recently a cultural dance that has been performed for centuries was banned because it was too seductive, and some dancers have been prosecuted because the traditional clothes are too revealing.

      To tell people they cant wear a religious and culturally significant garment here is as bad as Indonesia demanding that all its people conform to sharia law.

      Surely we are sophisticated enough now to recognise that not everyone holds the same beliefs and that within the bounds of human rights and the evolution of the legal system, difference can be accomodated. I do not intend to offend when i step outside without my hair covered, but I recognise that in some parts of the world, I would be offending the vast majority of people around me, and I would not do so. But I dont find someone making that choice in my country offensive. (I am not going to get into the argument about being forced to wear it, because there is little empirical evidence to apply and hearsay is a dangerous beast.) However, were I an Indonesian of other than Muslim religion, to have it demanded of me that I wear it now, after centuries of tolerance, I would be more than offended, I would be outraged and I would be fighting!

    • Greek Snake says:

      12:02pm | 13/05/10

      It’s about time we tossed the religious bullshit and started adhering to the legal system. The existence of these false prophets is yet to be proven so many hundreds of years after their said demise. Furthermore, if a law can’t be followed universally, it should not be made.

      Unless a country is based 100% on a single religion, then laws based on that religion are pointless. They do not appeal to the entire country and only a small portion will follow them. Given that 60% of Australians (at the last CENSUS) said they do not follow a religion, it’s truly time to properly separate church and state.

      Religious symbolism needs to be banned in public. It is the number one cause of conflict in multicultural societies. Along with the headscarf should go the Jesus fish, the yarmulke and the crucifix.  Feel free to believe in whatever imaginary friend you like, I don’t want to know about it. Look back at the riots in cronulla, all it took was a couple muslim youths to spout their religious crap and what do you know, it’s on like donkey kong.

      When people say they hear voices telling them to do things, it is often diagnosed as schizophrenia, when someone says they hear god, a miracle is said to have transpired. Get real. Religion out, realism in.

      BTW, before I get attacked, I was raised as Greek Orthodox. After 14-15 I started thinking it was a load of crap. Hearing the priest spout off hate about catholics made me think it was a bullshit exercise. Years later I’m an agnostic. While I don’t deny the existence of a higher power, I refuse to believe it exists in the form of how these religions sell it. Religion is big business - nothing more.

      Reply

    • tyu says:

      02:19pm | 13/05/10

      I knew the ‘one-world’ progressives would come for us Christians one day, I just didn’t think it would be so soon.

    • Graham S says:

      12:10pm | 13/05/10

      Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other
      components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here’s how it works:As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in: United States—Muslim 0.6% Australia—Muslim 1.5% Canada—Muslim 1.9% China—Muslim 1.8% Italy—Muslim 1.5% Norway—Muslim 1.8%  At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and
      disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among
      street gangs. This is happening in: Denmark—Muslim 2% Germany—Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom—Muslim 2.7% - London Bus bombings, Airport car bomb Spain—Muslim 4% - Madrid railway station bombing
      Thailand—Muslim 4.6% From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on
      supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -along with threats
      for failure to comply. This is occurring in: France—Muslim 8% Philippines—5% - Separatist murders, attacks on Christians Sweden—Muslim 5%
      Switzerland—Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands—Muslim 5.5%
      At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them
      to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law.
      The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire
      world. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase
      lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions.In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in: Guyana—Muslim 10% India—Muslim 13.4% Kenya—Muslim 10% Russia—Muslim 15% - Chechnya, Theatre shootings, Primary school slaughter, recent underground suicide bombers
      After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia
      formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and
      Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia—Muslim 32.8% At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: Bosnia—Muslim 40% Chad—Muslim 53.1%
      Lebanon—Muslim 59.7% From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
      Albania—Muslim 70% Malaysia—Muslim 60.4% Qatar—Muslim 77.5%
      Sudan—Muslim 70% After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh—Muslim 83% Egypt—Muslim 90% Gaza—Muslim 98.7% Indonesia—Muslim 86.1%
      Iran—Muslim 98% Iraq—Muslim 97% Jordan—Muslim 92% Morocco—Muslim 98.7% Pakistan—Muslim 97% Palestine—Muslim 99% Syria—Muslim 90% Tajikistan—Muslim 90% United Arab Emirates—Muslim 96%
      100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’—the Islamic House of
      Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a
      Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only
      word, such as in: Afghanistan—Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia—Muslim 100%
      Somalia—Muslim 100% Yemen—Muslim 100% Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons. Islam is not for Australia

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      01:18pm | 13/05/10

      Correlation does not imply causation.  Basic logic.

    • Markus says:

      02:06pm | 13/05/10

      Correlation is not equal to causation; it is only a requirement for it.

      Religious background is not the one and only cause, but it is naive to simply say that it is not a contributing factor.

    • Greek Snake says:

      02:10pm | 13/05/10

      Excellent post - Graham S. It is easy to see the trend with the statistics you have listed.

      Obviously some of the loony left wish to give the benefit of the doubt. By pushing the politically correct garbage that it is not Islam’s fault. Even when faced with staggering statistics like those you listed, they choose to ignore because “it does not imply causation”... What a sad country this has become.

      May the daughters of the deniers find strict Muslim boyfriends, and then let’s witness the decline of your child’s freedom as she is forced to alter her way of life all in the name of the false prophet.

    • Ryan says:

      02:22pm | 13/05/10

      @James1 : I believe Occam’s razor would disagree with your personal theory on “Basic Logic”.

    • Graham S says:

      02:54pm | 13/05/10

      Further more to the above:It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 10% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos within which they are 100% Muslim and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos.There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations,Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate. When was the last time a Muslim community leader in Australia condemed Islamic inspired terrorism?  And you don’t think Muslims in this country wouldn’t wish the 5 pillars of Islam to be the basis of their very existence or are they quite content living in a Christian society and would never, ever so subtley push for Islamic change, say start with halal fast food being introduced into franchised take-aways?, press for no Easter & Xmas decorations in their suburbs, women only swimming pool days?. Give it time..
      >

    • James1 says:

      03:25pm | 13/05/10

      Perhaps it would Razor, but things have progressed a lot since the 1300s, and logic and modes of thought have become far more sophisticated.  Thus, despite Occam’s Razor, correlation does not imply causation.

    • James1 says:

      03:31pm | 13/05/10

      Also Ryan, it is not my personal theory, but something accepted by scientists and academics everywhere.  If correlation implied causation, I could validly say that we should not vote Liberal, as Coalition governments cause less rain than ALP ones (there is a strong correlation there, and as Occam’s Razor says…).

    • James1 says:

      03:38pm | 13/05/10

      One more thing Ryan and Graham - if you truly believe that correlation and causation are the same thing, I have something I would like to sell you.  I have an anti-tiger rock.  It has been in my house for nearly a decade, and my house and its occupants have not once been subject to tiger attack in that time, thus proving that the rock is effective.  All I am asking is $10 000 - a small price to pay for safety from tiger attack.

    • Sarah says:

      04:06pm | 13/05/10

      This is the most logical thing I have read here. Thanks Graham, and you totally have a point. Also with Sharia Law is that women hardly have any rights - if for example, a couple get divorced, the woman might not even have any access to her children. That is not compatiable with Australia, at all, and yet, this is the objective of non-moderate muslims.

    • Greek Snake says:

      04:14pm | 13/05/10

      James, the quote you make is only relevant when comparing two variables. In this instance, there are comparisons of several consequences due to a Muslim population. Thus “Correlation is not Causation” is an inaccurate, and inadequate response.

      Furthermore, while it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their non-equivalence omits information about their relationship. Empirically observed co-variation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality, or, more simply put: Correlation is not equal to causation; it is only a requirement for it.

    • notsurprised says:

      04:43pm | 13/05/10

      Well said Graham. It may not be what the majority of us would like to hear, but it’s the truth.

    • James1 says:

      04:49pm | 13/05/10

      I see Green Snake.  I guess you have accounted for all the other variables and dependent variables as well.  If so, please set them out for me, then I will accept the argument you are making.  Until then, I will reiterate that while this shows correlation, there are no causal links made by any of the posters here.

    • Markus says:

      05:01pm | 13/05/10

      Thank you Greek Snake for correcting James1 in a much less condescending way than I was intending.
      He seemed to conveniently overlook my statement above outlining the exact same thing before he went off on his tirade that proved to me he clearly does not understand the concept.

    • Ryan says:

      05:25pm | 13/05/10

      @James1 : your arguments are so far off the wall that I find them laughable. I gave you the therom that is the basis of almost all logic today and you give me a response “something accepted by scientists and academics everywhere”. Correlation is a logical trigger for further investigation into causation, meaning that causation cannot exist without correlation. Once this is established you apply the RELEVANT factors which it appears Graham has, unlike your illogical rant about rocks and tigers.
      Now if you were smart enough to understand Occam’s Razor, your response would have been to offer a logical simpler causation solution to what Graham has put forward, unfortunately you have supplied nothing more than an illogical rant.

    • James1 says:

      10:07am | 14/05/10

      My simpler explanation Ryan?  The is a much stronger correlation with poverty and the countries identified than there is with Islam.  Graham does not even consider the violence in many poor Christian majority countries as being relevant, thus the correlation he attempts to establish is very, very weak, as he has not even considered the evidence that contradicts this correlation.  He has selectively presented data in such a way as to support a preconceived notion.  Academic methods have moved on since Occam, much as I am sure you love to live in the 14th century. 

      I know that causation cannot exist with correlation, but it is a classic error of the undereducated to equate the two, as you so clearly do.  When you finish your undergraduate degree, and begin to study academic methodology (assuming you even take the effort to further your education), then we can talk.  For now, your rudimentary understanding of methodology and the links between causal and correlative factors does nothing more than amuse me.  14th century philosophy (drawn from the Wikipedia entry, I am certain) is no basis on which to establish connections as you have attempted to do, and represents a simplistic mode of thought.  We have far more sophisticated methods now.  If you truly believe what you say, then you would also accept the causative relationship between ALP governments and higher rainfall, unless of course there are other variables and data that I have not accounted for…

    • Lin says:

      04:14pm | 14/05/10

      Graham S, the best post I read on this subject in a long time. Statistics doesn’t lie. In addition to population numbers so widely debated, who is addressing the issue of how the Australian society is going to look like by 2050? What is the lifestyle our grandchildren’s children will inherit from today’s choices?
      Islam has different strategies for growth, of which one is to outnumber the incumbent population by birth rate and intimidation (this can also take a form of extreme dress to irritate the local population). This is how they grow. Look also at the example of Kosovo, an ancient Serb territory : Albanian Muslims numbered 10% of the population in the early 20th century (vs 90% of Serbs), this situation reversed by the end of the century thanks to 10+ children per Albanian family, and initimidation of local Serbs who were leaving in droves. As a ‘minority’ the Albanias were generously supported by the old Yugoslav government. Then in the late 20th century guerilla attacks and calls for independence started… the rest is history (thanks to the support by NATO).
      I fully agree - Islam is NOT for Australia. The Australian immigration policy makers should learn from the examples you listed and have the guts and the right of a sovereign nation to select who comes here.

    • Ryan says:

      02:00pm | 17/05/10

      @James1 : other than go off trying to act clever and assuming far too much on my academic record, why don’t you actually prove you know what you are talking about and give some actual examples of these christian countries that have poverty at the same levels and have the same levels of violence. What we do take from this James is the fact that you are not mature enough to play the ball and not the man.

    • Dan says:

      04:12am | 18/05/10

      Thankfully, Lin and Graham S, people like you are in no position of power. You are reprehensible.

    • James1 says:

      10:23am | 18/05/10

      Easily done, Ryan.  East Timor.  The Lord’s Resistance Army of Uganda.  South Africa.  Zimbabwe.  To simply blame all of the world’s problems on Muslim population levels is one of the silliest arguments I have ever seen - that kind of simplistic analysis would never pass peer review, anywhere.  And these wild conspiracy theories just make me laugh.

    • Bemused says:

      12:34pm | 13/05/10

      “a call he says is echoed by the majority of the population.” -  Read your blog responses Tori.  There is no place in Australia for Sharia customs, and any call to accept them is nothing but a self back patting show of misguided tolerance.  Taking the Moral high ground serves for nothing other than making us feel like nicer people, something I would happily sacrifice to keep Sharia traditions as far away from here as possible.  Australia, like any country, is a business.  Decisions should be made for the best possible advancement of Australian citizens, everything else is a distant second.  I wonder what would happen if I flew over to Indonesia and implemented some western nudist beach action and then called for tolerance….

      Reply

    • Leigh says:

      12:37pm | 13/05/10

      For me, it is less about religion and more about safety. I don’t see any difference between a burqa and a balaclava. Except with a balaclava you can still see a mouth. But you get my drift. Covering your face is intimidating and dangerous. Who knows who could be underneath one of these? We’ve all heard stories about the man who robbed the local store wearing one, and the british terrorist who escaped the airport pretending to be his sister in a burqa. Escaped criminals on the run can hide behind one! I believe that you should not be able to wear anything covering your face in public for the safety of others, not for religious reasons. In private, do what you want.

      I also find it hilarious that people are saying it will force these women to stay indoors. Well I’ve got a better idea for them. How about they go back to where they came from? I know this is a typical Aussie attitude, but it’s true. Why would they even come here if they believe women should be hiding behind these things. Haven’t they noticed we walk around in bikinis?

      Reply

    • J says:

      01:26pm | 13/05/10

      I appreciate given the vehement xenophobia on this board that this is a waste of time, but I would like to point out to all those people saying things like “why have they even come here?” - perhaps people have chosen to move to Australia because it is a free country, a democratic state which abides by international conventions on free speech and expression of religion. The choice to wear a burqa is no different to the choice to wear a crucifx. It is an outward display of a religious stance. Please stop confusing a woman wearing a burqa with an inexorable movement towards sharia law. One is a totally seperate thing from the other.

      As has been stated by some rational minorities in the past, legislating to force someone to not wear something is the same as forcing them to wear it. It is as simple as that. And that runs counter to everything Australia is supposed to stand for.

      Reply

    • notsurprised says:

      02:50pm | 13/05/10

      “...runs counter to everything Australia is supposed to stand for. ” J you’ve just highlighted the main problem in this entire debate. The Australian government promotes the equality of all Australians and their choice of religion. Taken direct from the Department of Immigration website - “Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good.” So anyone may practice any religion they choose BUT the equality of men and women under the spirit of egalitarianism must be upheld. This appears to be in direct contradiction when it come to the case of the full face burqua. Therein lies the problem.

    • Markus says:

      03:11pm | 13/05/10

      Very true notsurprised.
      As someone stated above, Islam is not simply religion, but an intertwining of religion, politics and law.
      The issue arises when it says we value freedom of religion, and commitment to the rule of law.
      When a rule of Islam violates the rule of law, the rule of law should always take precedence.
      J, the burqa is a mask, and like any other mask (helmet, baloclava), by law must be removed in most public places, and when asked by police for identification purposes.
      Rule of law takes precedence over rule of religion. Nobody, regardless of race, religion or socioeconomic status, should be above our laws.

    • J says:

      05:06pm | 13/05/10

      Nobody is above our laws, that I agree with. But I fail to see how a woman’s choice to wear a particular face covering is somehow impugning on eqaulity?! Target the fundamentalists within the religion, target the glass ceiling deniers - but the burqa, when worn by choice (and note that caveat), is not a mark of inequality, but a mark of a religion. Regardless of what it may mean to you, that is not what it means to the woman wearing it. And it is her rights you are so happily advocating treading on. Which, I’m sorry, but that does indeed run counter to the idea of equality.

      And by the way - I am not aware of any ‘law’ stating I must remove my helmet in public places. I know I can be banned from shopping centres, from banks etc., if I refuse to remove it, but as far as I’m aware, if I want to walk down the streets in a helmet, noone has the right to stop me. Produce the legislation or stop using such false arguments.

    • Greg R says:

      02:32am | 16/05/10

      Im yet to see a crucifix that covers your whole body leaving only a slit for the eyes. Why compare apples with oranges. The move to Sharia law has already begun(Sharia housing loans from the big 4). Stop burying your head in the sand and face the unpleasant truth. When will you realise there is only one Australia in the world, if we dont protect it we will lose it and when its gone its gone for good.

    • Dan says:

      11:48am | 16/05/10

      Greg R, if you weren’t so ignorant, you would realise that not all aspects of Sharia is so bad; Sharia banking for example is actually pretty good, and the market for it is dramatically increasing. If your vision of Australia is as ignorant and narrowminded as your post, then I hope we do lose it!

    • Greg R says:

      03:32pm | 16/05/10

      Dan your ignorance is astounding! Your happy for different sets of rules depending on your ethnecity? Not one rule for all? Only Muslims can access Shria loans. You are part of the problem. As I said get your head out of the sand. If your happy to lose what we have then, go forth and multiply and stop stuffing it up for the rest of us

    • Dan says:

      04:19am | 18/05/10

      Greg R, you are so ignorant it’s incredible. Any-one can access sharia loans, but if only Muslims could, then protest to the banks. I am not part of any problem. You are; you still obviously want a White Australia. Well, it’s 2010 and it’s time to move on!

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      02:00pm | 13/05/10

      What bigots.  What business is it of yours if a woman chooses to wear something that gives her comfort?  In this country we say that women deserve to be raped if they wear short dresses, we chastise muslims for saying it and don’t chastise all the white judges who let rapists off.

      Aceh is a strange case.  Australia takes credit for brokering the peace in Aceh, yet look what has been inflicted on the people of Aceh with our complicity.

      We bomb and blast Afghanistan and pretend it was about protecting women yet if Afghan women come here to escape the oppression and torture we lock them up and now we have decided to keep them deliberately and illegally locked up based only on the lie that Afghanistan might be better in the next 6 months.

      A recent RRT decision tore that delusion to bits.

      Orthodox jewish women are forced to shave their hair, wear wigs and dress with absolute modesty and walk 10 steps behind hubby. 

      Catholic women are “forbidden” to use contraceptives.  Do we complain about that?

      Do grow up little people.

      We are becoming the tyrants we pretend we don’t like.

      Reply

    • mel says:

      03:26pm | 13/05/10

      while i dislike the burqa for many reasons, i am not sure if banning it would work either.

      your argument is slightly flawed in that as a catholic my church doesn’t want me to use contraceptives, but the laws of my country state that i have the freedom to choose…that the laws of my church have little effect on the whole population and if you are not catholic then no effect what so ever. same could be said for a jewish woman.
      the difference is with sharia law there no seperation of state and religion.

    • Greek Snake says:

      03:32pm | 13/05/10

      Stupid comparisons. I’m yet to hear of a Catholic man killing or bashing his wife for being on the pill.

      As you can see though, religion is not famous for making sensible rules. Follow whatever rules you like in your house, but don’t bring that crap to our legal system. Let the law be simple, clean and without bias to everyone’s imaginary friend.

    • Peter Simmons says:

      05:56pm | 13/05/10

      Marilyn don’t talk rubbish.

      Christianity does not behead or stone people for what they they wear, or whether they use contraception.  Muslims aren’t allow to use contraceptives either and homosexuality is punishable by DEATH.

      Before you push your bigoted views, get your facts right.

    • min says:

      02:16pm | 13/05/10

      what i don’t like about a burqa is that it seems to be a man made decision.  i read the other day that when told his wife couldn’t wear a burqa outside, this man, decided that he then wouldn’t let his wife outside. what man has a right to make that choice? what man has the right to deny a woman the freedom of going outside? .i would love for my husband to even suggest that to me…
      if a burqa is to stop men learing at women then why not teach the men to be more respectful, therefor there would be no need for burqas.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      02:19pm | 13/05/10

      While I’m not in favour of banning the burqa, I disagree with your point that it is only an “outward display of a religious stance.”  Nothing in the Quran requires women to wear a burqa or its equivalent.  Women (and men) must dress modestly, and that means being covered neck to ankle, shoulder to wrist.  There is no requirement for a face covering. 

      The face covering, the burqa, harks back to tribal days and values, with women living their adult lives in purdah, isolated from all but other women and male relatives, unable to go out of their compounds freely, denied opportunities to work or to have a say in governance.  This is a way of life that predates Islam, and simply continued on in the same villages once they became islamized.

      I believe the burqa represents less a religious stance, and much more a set of values that should have disappeared 500 years ago.  It represents the antithesis of our understanding of equality and freedom. And it should be seen in that light, rather than in the light of some sort of religious expression.

      Reply

    • James says:

      02:35pm | 13/05/10

      Banning a piece of clothing no matter how loony is even more loony.  What is worse a women in a burqa doing the shopping or a bogan in stubbies glassing someone.

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      09:02am | 14/05/10

      Wow so those resturants that ban you entering if wearing boardies and thongs are loonie? Well I never!

    • Jodie says:

      02:51pm | 13/05/10

      I’d just like to point out to some that do not seem to have read Tory’s article that she is not advocating that Sharia Law be recognised in Australia. She is arguing that Australia needs to better understand it’s nuances and the different ways it manifests in different countries so we can better understand and negotiate with countries in our region on things like anti-terrorism measures. We can also then better promote human rights and freedoms etc This is in our own national interest.

      Reply

    • min says:

      02:52pm | 13/05/10

      when the profet decred “when you ask his wives for anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain(hijab)”.
      this was meant for his own wives and not all women in general.
      in the religious revellutions of the 60’s and 70’s the hijab was seem as a political statement and not a religious one, as a way of defiance against western influence.

      Reply

    • lorraine says:

      03:14pm | 13/05/10

      What an absolute inane comparison, James! Could you not come up with something more intelligible…...

      Reply

    • James says:

      04:41pm | 13/05/10

      How is it wrong though?

    • Greg R says:

      11:36pm | 16/05/10

      James….A woman in a burka shopping or a bogan glassing? What about a woman in a burka shopping or a bogan shopping?
      Keep the comparisons relevant.

    • lorraine says:

      05:34pm | 13/05/10

      At least bogans have freedom of choice in heat they can wear

      Reply

    • Venise says: says:

      06:48pm | 13/05/10

      I don’t think Tory Shepherd mentioned the burqua did she? She mentioned the hibjab.

      It amuses me greatly to see everyone flying to defend-on the grounds of multiculturalism-a practise which by no means reflects the majority of Muslim countries. Yet.

      Not long ago I visited Iran, Syria and Jordan. None of these countries, not even Iran, demanded the burqua. The only time I had to wear one it A) showed my face and B) When going inside a mosque.

      It was not a put up job ‘for the tourist’ I was on my own- fortunately American tourists are not allowed to visit these countries, and unannounced. I just leaned into a cupboard and grabbed one.

      I had no objection to going without alcohol, wearing the long garment which came down to my feet, and wearing the hibjab. As a guest in Iran I was happy to oblige.

      It wasn’t required wearing in either Syria or Jordan, and one of the nicest things I saw in Syria were lady cops and lady soldiers wearing a tiny, see- through hair covering which didn’t even cover the hair. It sort of sat perched on top of the head. As these ladies were were wearing uniform at the time it looked rather nice.

      Apart from very old ladies-who had covered their bodies all their lives-I formed the impression it was ladies who were throwing their religion around to bully other ladies who were fanatical about being covered up. As in to make the others feel inferior. I even met a lady who refused to remove her chador when as a guest in peoples’ houses.

      I have every objection to Muslim ladies covering their faces in Australia. I didn’t see one car driver in any of the countries visited with her face covered. Given the chaotic amount of traffic, I’d be surprised if it was legal to wear one.

      Mainly, my objections to face covering is why should Muslim women be allowed to cover their faces when one of the few countries to insist that they do so, is Afghanistan. That’s right, Afghanistan!

      Hey folks: You don’t have to prove that Oz is multicultural by replacing reason- at the behest of the Politically Correct-with slavish attention to other peoples’ dictates.

      Thankfully, we are multicultural, we prove nothing and achieve nothing by endangering peoples’ lives-has anyone ever been in a bank, before they had to remove them, a couple of blokes coming in fully helmeted? I have and I felt very nervous.

      You are all being led by the nose by the Politically Correct and the strident minority of Islamic women who wish to stick it up you.

      At the rate with which Islam is swinging to the right, the time will come soon when we will no longer tolerate people with hidden faces. It would be wise to stop the practise now.

      Reply

    • Ras Putin says:

      07:08pm | 13/05/10

      In Aust. women have complete freedom!  The burka is the subjugation of women.. It is unAustralian and unwanted!!  There are aeroplanes leaving every day..The people who insist upon wearing same should get on one..

      Reply

    • LFG says:

      08:16pm | 13/05/10

      Cory Bernadi is the only Australian politician with the courage to say what he thinks.

      Reply

    • Scarlet says:

      09:39pm | 13/05/10

      I think it is lovely that you are respecting their customs in their country - wouldn’t it be nice if Muslims did the same when they came here? We’d all get along better.

      Reply

    • aussie muslim says:

      12:01am | 14/05/10

      Many people here are under the impression that there are no ‘muslim’ australians about. Muslim australians have just as much right to follow ther religion to he letter just as any other person of any other religion. When it comes to hijab or niqab, or the burka or the abaya, they are all ment to keep the womans sense of modesty, and prevent the women from being judged solely by her appearance. Islam is a religion that emphasizes moderation, and the way most muslims see it, covering the face completely is extreme, and as such just covering the hair is fine. I wont scream murder if covering the face is banned, but when the government tells me that i must not cover my hair, i am more than happy to move abroad and burn by aussie passport, and 3 generations of links to this country, as acheh and saudi cant be much worse that this.

      Reply

    • Graham S says:

      02:25pm | 14/05/10

      Please burn your passport & go which only proves the point your more Muslim than Australian,  oh by the way, good luck getting your drivers license in Saudi Arabia, well known as the international symbol of tolerence, human rights, justice & democracy ( or is that Acheh?). You’ll love it there, wear your ridiculous garb with pride. Note: avoid stonings

    • Jeremy says:

      07:07am | 14/05/10

      I think the burqa is terrible for the opression that it represents. At the same time, I can’t see any resonable way to justify banning it. If it’s on the grounds of security then we would have to also ban people from dressing as clowns or wearing animals suits (for example buskers entertaining kids or people collecting for charity). I’m not trying to be a smart-arse, but just pointing out that while many of us may oppose the horror of fundamentalist religion, we can’t tell people what to wear in a free society. I think a fair-minded person can see both sides of this argument - those who think this is a clear-cut issue seem to be a motley crew of idealists and bigots. As for the argument that ‘people coming here should adopt our customs’, I think even those of limited intellect can see the massive flaws in that. Clearly our ancestors didn’t adapt to the Aboriginal way of life, so what right do we have to say people should adjust to the Anglo-Australian way of life? But, as I said, the Burqa is a symbol of opressive fundamentalism and I have mixed feelings about defending people’s right to wear it.

      Reply

    • always right. says:

      01:32pm | 14/05/10

      Screw the burqa law. We should simply have a law stating that it is illegal to cover your face in public. I don’t care what people do in their own homes but I do not want my safety to be compromised.

      Reply

    • Harquebus says:

      12:53pm | 15/05/10

      Our liberties continue to be eroded. Promoted mainly by religious organizations. Only by ridiculing and humiliating religious morons to the lunatic fringe where they belong, can liberties be protected. If that means embarrassing our neighbor, stiff.
      You are fighting the wrong battle Tori.

      Reply

    • Brett L says:

      08:51pm | 16/05/10

      I’m refusing to pay my credit card bill this month based on religion. Sharia Law states no interest shall be charged. So bank, GFY!

      Reply

    • MUSLIM says:

      07:37pm | 17/05/10

      I am MUSLIM,and i have NO PROBLEM with an Indian wearing a Turbin or a Jewish wearing a kippah. (the skullcap) or a man Wearing a hat
      i can not understand why the world is against the Muslim scarf ?!..

      Reply

    • Paul2 says:

      09:40am | 18/05/10

      Its not the scarf, its what the controlled Western media has been conditioning them to think that it represents since 2001.  Up to that time no-one here knew jack-s—t about it.  They still don’t, but at least its taken their indolent thinking away from baggy jeans for a while.

    • averill39 says:

      07:17pm | 28/05/10

      It is not the scarf that is causing the problem; after all the Queen wears a scarf!!
      It is the persistent push by Muslims to get their own way. The burqa, niqab, sharia law, mosques in every suburb, every butcher is halal, restaurant food must be halal, and so on ad infinitum. They want to rule the world as the main religion, and will do everyting they can to fulfil what they perceive as the will of allah. Other peoples and religions who have come to Australia, give and take, and are quite happy to ‘fit in’

      Reply

    • Goda says:

      05:30am | 21/09/10

      Dear Tory..let me first of all thank you for this article which although it contain a obvious Criticism for some of islam laws,but it was in logic decent language too.
      after i did read your article i found some misconceptions..so am gonna try to explain as honestly and logically as i can..The content of speech does not come out for these subjects: alcohol ban,adultries and its punishments,hejab,women rights,jehad and terrorism.
      sharia law is believed to be committed to ensure and protect five things(religion,soul,mind,offspring and property) and this is like a huge umbrella that cover anybody jewish,christian,buddist,hindu…even athiest.
      1.Why alcohol banned?!..and i think the right formula to ask this question is ( why do alcohol still legal in europe and other countries?!!)..YES..why do something still legal although it cause fatal physical,social,mental and psychological effects..blindness,kidney failure,Alzheimer’s,sterility,madness,paranoya,schizophernia,sexual disability,fetal abnormalities…etc in addition to canned list of fatal effects..how much it is the crimes that it committed by those who drink alcohols or drugs..how many innocent women have been killed or raped due to those!!!...you may say:hey you!! am just a social drinking am also a respectable man/women it can’t be that i commit those terrible things..and simply i say that is like extending your hand through the cage of lion!!...if you survived once maybe your luck won’t help you again.

      2.Why hejab?!!...for clear reason have been stated in holly quran:
      (o prophet mohamed direct your wives,daughters and believer women to dress codes cause this is make them avoid harrassment and harm)
      following sharia law result in decent and clean society…when women wear hejab and comitte with dress codes she avoid to be bothered,intruded raped or even harmed with impolite sights…according to what reported from The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) the rapes crimes comitted was 15,630 case…in country like saudi arabia which follow sharia law rape only 59 !!! http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes

      3.punishment laws in sharia…and these laws hadn’t been stated to be used..unlikely it had been stated to be avoided!!..if someone know that if he killed another he will be killed too…if someone know that if he raped a women he will be stoned to death..if someone know that if he stole he will face cutting his hand..etc…if this man know all of this will he submit to do any of the above!!..and how many innocent will be in safe?!!

      4.adultries…what’s wrong if i sleep with anyone i like..man,woman or even animal..and what’s wrong to be gay,lesbian or anyhow??...and here u are the problems:
      -losing women dignity as it treated as a toy just for fun and for anyone.
      -threaten the human species as gay,lesbian and other abnormal sexual trends leads to nothing except HIV and fatal STDs…you can easily check all the satistics that report how many person die annualy cause of sexually transmitted disease and compare these results to those for islamic country.

      i wish i could cover all the points but am afraid that it won’t be easy to do it
      thanks again tory and i will be pleased to hear from you..

      Reply

    • Kezza says:

      04:21pm | 23/09/10

      Why aren’t Muslim men required to cover their faces?

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:00PM

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 08:57PM

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

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

by David Penberthy

0

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

0

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

0

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