(May 17, 2012 at 12:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(May 14, 2012 at 2:45 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: The burka thing is rather complex, actually. Most of you people don't really know what it serves to do, or whatever religious context that is behind it.

Nor do I care. I simply do not ever want to see this......



driving a car.

Well, it's your country. You hold the power, democracy, and it works.
Just make it illegal.

(May 17, 2012 at 3:53 am)Tiberius Wrote:

---

(May 17, 2012 at 1:48 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Not quite Tiberius.

Yes quite Kichi. I'm not sure what you are objecting to here; you asked me what I defined the burqa as. I not only gave you my definition; I gave you the definition.

Quote:As I have said should a lady want to wear a burqa that reveals her face...no problems, it does draw attention to her in a society that has not adopted such clothing though and makes her more of a target.

There is no such thing as a burqa that reveals the face. A burqa by definition is a full face covering. It may have a flap which can be used to reveal the face, but this is closed for the most part. Also, I'd think that the kind of people who would attack a woman for wearing a burqa are the kind of people who would attack her for being Muslim (or looking Arab) anyway.

Quote:You are confusing a Burqa with a Niqab ....both pieces of clothing are for different purposes and as such I have no issues with the wearing of tons of clothing in 40 degree heat if that is what the lady wishes. Should she wish to cover her head leaving her face free, this is also not an issue. We do not have many Taliban burqas here in Australia but if we did/do that their banning on the grounds of the persecution of women would be called for.

No, you are confusing both with the hijab. Both the burqa and niqab are full face coverings; the latter covering most of the face but leaving a small slit for the eyes. Let's not make this an argument about semantics please. Let's use the actual definitions of the words rather than what you might think they are.

Quote:I am thinking you are a bit confused with the clothing issues here in Australia. I have tried to point out the reasoning against full face coverings in places of commerce but you seem to disregard them.

No, you have not pointed out any reasoning. All you've done is say that some people find them uncomfortable. I've rejected that reason as irrational; if you want to refute my response then do so.

Quote:A "Libertarian attitude" would also have to take into account the victims of the crimes where full face coverings have been used. "A Libertarian" would surely consider the psychological impact that has embedded itself in the collective psyche of the society that does NOT routinely wear full face coverings. Or have I misunderstood "Libertarian"? After all should it not be one law for ALL??

You've misunderstood "Libertarian". A Libertarian seeks to maximize liberty; that doesn't involve banning what people can wear because some people have an irrational fear. I've already pointed out why the whole "crimes where full face coverings are used" argument makes absolutely no sense. If you want to object to that argument, please do so properly.

Yes, it should be one law for ALL, but I've never argued against that in this thread. I've already said that if the burqa shouldn't be banned, neither should crash helmets, skiing goggles, etc.

Quote:You seem to think that the bannings here are for no other reason that "minority bashing" and this is not the case at all.

No I don't. Please point out where I said this or alluded to this.

Quote:One famous case was where a driver refused to take off her/ his Niqab for an identity check with police...big kerfufful ...ended up that it is now a fineable offence NOT to reveal your face for Identity checks by Police, and you will be frog marched to the nearest Police station to have you identity checked. Person in question could originally be charged because the "driver" could not be identified.

Sure, and I've said that there should be exceptions where identification is required. I've said that many times now. Are you actually reading my posts?

Quote:Hoodies are being banned in many convenience stores, bottle shops and service stations, just as motorcycle helmets, and Balaclavas...in short, you must reveal your face for identity purposes as the majority of commercial establishments are on CCTV/ Video monitoring thanks to the small percentage of the population who see fit to steal, maim and or murder.

Right, except again you bring up the argument from "criminal action". What aren't you getting about this? Criminals will wear masks to hide their identities whether it is legal to do so or not. They are criminals; they do not care for the law. This whole argument is completely illogical. Of course, a shop that requires ID (i.e. if it is selling tobacco / alcohol) should also require that any face covering be revealed, but I'm not against that. I've said there are exceptions, but exceptions should not be the general rule.

Quote:"Islamicphobia" like Halal has no real meaning here in Australia except to make food more expensive and to add ANOTHER minority group to the collection....

Irrelevant if it holds no meaning. If it exists, it exists.

Quote:What you seem to be calling a Burqa...and yes I object to this amount of covering in places of commerce.

Again, why? Do you have any other argument other than the deeply flawed "because criminals use them"?

Quote:What I object to and will support the laws of this land regarding this item of recently cultural clothing...one law for ALL or no law at all. I think this is only fair.

Now I really think you aren't reading my posts. I've said that it should be one law for ALL or no law at all. I hold that there is no rational reason to have any burqa ban at all, so I'm for the "no law at all" option. You have yet to present a logical argument for why the burqa should be banned. If you do so, we can discuss it. If not, we're doomed to just keep repeating ourselves.

---

Then I would suggest you don't come to Australia mate.

I always think its a bad idea to ban the burqa, but its so hateful when they say they are "doing it for women" or "because its misogynist". Forcing women into wearing secular more xenophobe-friendly clothing is no better than Afghanistan forcing them to wear a burqa.

(May 18, 2012 at 2:09 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Then I would suggest you don't come to Australia mate.

Is that all you have to say to my entire page long response? I'm not even sure how it is relevant. I've been to Australia before and loved it. One should not necessarily judge a country based on the absurdity of their laws, and being a law abiding citizen I follow the law, even when it is absurd. That doesn't mean I can't object or campaign for change.

(May 18, 2012 at 6:25 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(May 18, 2012 at 2:09 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Then I would suggest you don't come to Australia mate.

Is that all you have to say to my entire page long response? I'm not even sure how it is relevant. I've been to Australia before and loved it. One should not necessarily judge a country based on the absurdity of their laws, and being a law abiding citizen I follow the law, even when it is absurd. That doesn't mean I can't object or campaign for change.

What you are NOT observing is the law of the land.... here we don't tolerate full face coverings..not well any way. You cover your face you ar a criminal or diseased. You Libertarian attitude will not wash here. We are a Pluralistic society and value that "If in Rome-Do as the Romans do."

---

Should I find myself in say Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia..then i would don the Burqa...because it is the Culture and LAW of that land. Beyond that Tiberius you have no argument.

---

You also have no idea of what constitutes a Burqa..did you actually READ that Wiki article you posted??

Burqa are a TRIBAL item of clothing and I would ask you to investigate this problem further before you start spouting nonsensical gibberish. Many of the females in the countries of origin of said pathetic pieces of clothing are adamant that this sort of condemnation and abusive misogyny be abolished. So much for the "Libertarian" attitude...what you are saying is that we should keep females in bondage??

(May 18, 2012 at 8:59 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: What you are NOT observing is the law of the land....

Yes, I am. I'm observing it, and pointing out that it is flawed and based on irrational thought.

Quote:here we don't tolerate full face coverings..not well any way.

I'm well aware of that, but what we are debating is not what currently happens, but whether it should happen. You have still not given me a concise explanation of your own personal views on banning the burqa, and the reasons for those views, unless your only reasons are "criminals could use them / they make people nervous", which as I've pointed out are not valid reasons for banning something.

Quote:You cover your face you ar a criminal or diseased.

Again, we're not debating what the current attitudes are; we are debating whether they are correct attitudes to have. People can cover their face for far more reasons than being a criminal or being diseased, ergo I hold that this kind of attitude is based on the same kind of irrational thought as the reasons for banning the burqa.

Quote:You Libertarian attitude will not wash here. We are a Pluralistic society and value that "If in Rome-Do as the Romans do."

I don't care. This debate is not about whether my attitude is compatible with current Australian society.

Quote:Should I find myself in say Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia..then i would don the Burqa...because it is the Culture and LAW of that land. Beyond that Tiberius you have no argument.

I do have an argument beyond that (actually, I'm not even sure one of my arguments is in there), and that is: "All arguments for banning the burqa in non-Islamic society are based on faulty reasoning and irrational fear and/or Islamophobia". Feel free to try and refute that if you want to, but so far you haven't presented any valid argument for why the burqa should be banned.

Quote:You also have no idea of what constitutes a Burqa..did you actually READ that Wiki article you posted??

Burqa are a TRIBAL item of clothing and I would ask you to investigate this problem further before you start spouting nonsensical gibberish.

Yes, I read the article. No, a burqa is "an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions to cover their bodies in public places". It may have originally been a tribal item of clothing, but since people still wear them today in non-tribal society, the burqa has clearly evolved and become part of some Islamic tradition and culture. Hell, sandals were invented thousands of years ago, yet we still wear them and don't refer to them as "ancient footwear". My point of contention over your definition is that you held that a burqa could also refer to the hijab, which is not a full face covering. Sorry, but that view simply does not reflect the reality of Islamic clothing. A burqa is a full face covering; a niqab is a partial face covering (usually with an eye slit), and the hijab only covers the hair, ears, and neck. I even linked to a BBC graphic explaining the difference.

Also, which "nonsensical gibberish" are you referring to? You see, I don't think I did spout any, so I'd be enlightened to know what you interpreted as it.

Quote:Many of the females in the countries of origin of said pathetic pieces of clothing are adamant that this sort of condemnation and abusive misogyny be abolished. So much for the "Libertarian" attitude...what you are saying is that we should keep females in bondage??

Strawman. Never said that, never even alluded to it. I've made my position very clear: if a woman wants to wear it, or she is submissive to her husband and he says she should wear it, then I have no objection. It is, after all, none of my business, nor should it be mine or anyone else's. What I object to is someone being forced against their will to wear it, however this objection is still no grounds to ban it outright, since there are still women who choose to wear it, and I've already mentioned other reasons why banning an item of clothing is absurd.

Tiberius Wrote:I even linked to a BBC graphic explaining the difference.

Sorry mate but I have missed that link...would you care to post it again??

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_typ...rial_hijab

---

http://islam.about.com/od/dress/tp/cloth...ossary.htm

Ah yes, I see now; I am confusing the Chador with the Afghani burqa. Yes the Afghani Burqa should be banned for all that it stands for, this is my opinion...I think we have had this discussion before

Reality bites....
Could be that Islam is pro-homosexuality?

"Yes the Afghani Burqa should be banned for all that it stands for, this is my opinion"

So we should start banning symbols now? What happened to freedom of expression?

Yes Tiberius...men have had "Freedom of expression" for over 2000 years dear.... No More!

---

The point being is that the insistence of the use of the "Burqa" robs women OF the 'Freedom of Expression' That is the whole point of the "burqa" ...woman=Non thing/ Possession.