Should the Burqa be banned in Australia

[nero_bolt]

Should the Burqa and Niqab be banned in Australia?

[muppet_detector]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Just a thought. I wonder how many burq/niquab wearing women were actually born in Australia and how many of their daughters and granddaughters will choose to wear it. 

I still remember how surprised I was when I first came to Australia and saw the rather grim, black clothing worn - for cultural reasons - by many Greek and Italian matrons. That cultural fashion didn't survive the second generation.

---

yes that's true.

---

That's how i imagined the clothing of the grandmother in the Virginia Andrews novels - Flowers in the Attic - but the collar on the blouse was buttoned up high and there was a brooch at the neck, and her grey/white hair drawn back into a tight bun. Skirt tucked into a calf length black skirt - but a fairly straight one, not one of those ones that sort of flounce out as they get longer. Then thick stockings and low heeled plain black court shoes.

[village_person]

---

@am*3 wrote:

Islamic community leaders told Daily Mail Australia they are sick of the burqa (a form of dress where the face is covered by a mesh grill) being confused with the niqab, a more popular dress where the face is covered but the eyes are not.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2779101/Tony-Abbott-s-budgie-smugglers-confronting-not-calli...

---

Excellent point made by the Islamic community leaders. Now may we stress a point also; Australians are heartily sick of the Islamic community (they’re still not Australian I see) confusing Australia with the Middle East. We don’t cover our women in copious amounts of black material thereby creating a worldwide shortage of the stuff.

[lightningdance]

---

@iapetus_rocks wrote:

Yes, but that is the nature of intenet comms. all we have is the type; the words. it's inadequate and misunderstandings so easily arise, as we are all aware.

But, with face-to-face conversation, it is different. I think it is disrespectful to hide one's face in this circumstance.

And that's the cultural divide in a nutshell. They think they are being respectful, while I (we?) think they are being disrespectful.

I think this is an issue which Muslims have to deal with and work out for themselves.

I don't think it's our obligation or responsibility to accommodate a point of view which holds out that women are not the equals of men in every respect.

Which brings me back to the issue of "respect".

We are being asked to respect a culture and a religion which enshirines the idea that women are not the equals to men.

I cannot offer respect to such an idea, even if it is a religious belief, and certainly not if it is  a cultural belief.

---

100% agree: We do not have to "accommodate" any garb that dehumanizes women. We should not "accommodate" it and we should never compromise our western belief's that all gender is equal.

No "religion" has the right to cast females as not worthy, less than human, and valueless.

The wearing of the niqab in Australia spits on our culture and affronts women,  admits that women are not worthy and perpetrates the mindless sexism of this garment.

[nero_bolt]

and the sad part is this one....

[cherry*135]

vp wrote:
"Excellent point made by the Islamic community leaders. Now may we stress a point also; Australians are heartily sick of the Islamic community (they’re still not Australian I see) confusing Australia with the Middle East. We don’t cover our women in copious amounts of black material thereby creating a worldwide shortage of the stuff."

We have Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Macedonian, Greek, Lebanese, Vietnamese and more Communities and Leaders in Australia..does that mean those people aren't Australians ?

Is an Indian woman wearing a sari confused that Australia isn't India?

Poor attempt at Muslim bashing.

[nero_bolt]

As much as I think Lambie is a bogan bucket mouth I have to agree with her on this one

Burqa ban backdown win for extremists: Lambie

Palmer United Palmer senator Jacqui Lambie has claimed the government's burqa ban backdown will make extremists "smile".

The policy, originally established by Speaker Bronwyn Bishop and Senate President Stephen Parry earlier this month, was overturned this morning.

It would have forced women wearing face coverings such as the niqab or burqa to sit in a separate enclosed public gallery.

But Prime Minister Tony Abbott asked Ms Bishop to withdraw the policy.

Parliament's new security rules will instead require all visitors to identify themselves on entry to the building.

Ms Lambie said the reversal would "attack the morale" of the Australian Defence Force, News Corp has reported.

She vowed to press ahead with a private members bill to ban the burqa from being worn in public.

"To the Islamic extremists, today’s decision will prove how weak and indecisive we have become as a nation and how our PM lacks the courage of his convictions when it comes to Australia’s national security," she said.

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2014/10/20/15/24/jacqui-lambie-lashes-government-over-burqa-ban-bac...

[bluecat*dancing]

So, has it been decided yet? Is CS banning the burqa or not?

[azureline**]

I don't know, I am not sure but I think less people want it banned than not. I  don't know anyone personally who has an issue with it, some family members don't like it but see no reason to ban it............. so long as no one expects them to wear it too!

Parliament's new security rules will instead require all visitors to identify themselves on entry to the building.

Ms Lambie said the reversal would "attack the morale" of the Australian Defence Force, News Corp has reported.

She vowed to press ahead with a private members bill to ban the burqa from being worn in public.

So, does that mean it was just a ploy? she doesn't like it so she wants it banned, now the excuse has changed.................. the morale of the ADF?

[boris1gary]

1. After that, a slow slide into crazy town.
2. Senate estimates dealt with the circumstances leading up to thecontroversial decision on October 2 to ban women wearing burqas from the public galleries.
3. The following facts about this unfortunate incident duly emerged.
4. The presiding officers made the decision to ban head wear without reference to the AFP or to Asio.
5. The decision was made on the basis that parliament house was at imminent risk of a protest from people – possibly men – wearing burqas, who intended to disrupt Question Time.
6. Nobody could quite recall how that information came into the shared domain until a DPS official could, in fact, recall it.
7. The information came from police, who got the information from a media crew on the forecourt of parliament house.
8. It later turned out that said media crew had got the information from a tips and rumours line on 2UE. Naturally, the protest never eventuated. As a consequence, a ban was issued and relations between the parliament and the Muslim community were damaged very badly for absolutely no reason.
9. Just because national affairs hadn’t quite covered itself in enough glory – then there was an outbreak of semantics. Tony Abbott said on October 3 he’d sought a reversal of the burqa ban from the Speaker. Bronwyn Bishop said the request didn’t happen because it wasn’t a formal request, even though she wasn’t actually asked whether the request was informal or formal, just whether or not there had been one.

Can you bear it? I can’t, actually.

So let’s have a rest and try again in the morning.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2014/oct/20/australian-special-forces-get-legal-autho...

[iapetus_rocks]

Our federal govt really messed this one up. All they had to do was to ban any form of identity-concealing attire for visitors to Parliament.

Now, they would  have a hard time doing even that.

Inept, short-sighted, politically naive . . .  and hopefully, unelectable in the future.