Jump to content
Can't remember your login details? Read more... ×
MrFriendly

To ban or not to ban.

Recommended Posts

Was referring to your comments about who was going to pay the fine. You were stating it would only affect the husband's income, as the woman wouldn't have a job.

Whether or not the woman has a job, it affects the family's income. And thus the husband's.

 

I'm curious, have you made a salient point in this thread or are you attempting to find scenarios to trip us up with? It won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not read the whole thread - I'll get around to it - so this is just a response to the very well-worded OP.

 

Instead of my wall-of-text I'll just skip to the conclusion: banks, supermarkets, shops and private residences of all kinds currently have the power to require certain things of their customers. This includes removing helmets and cursory bag searches.

 

I assume that the law would currently allow Woolies and Westfield to require the removal of any "head covering" as a condition of entry. So I'm happy to let those businesses decide for themselves.

 

But existing public-area laws only cover indecency and nuisance (nudity and being-a-jackass, mainly). Only Police or other specific authorities ought to have the power to inspect someone's identity in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was referring to your comments about who was going to pay the fine. You were stating it would only affect the husband's income, as the woman wouldn't have a job.

Whether or not the woman has a job, it affects the family's income. And thus the husband's.

 

I'm curious, have you made a salient point in this thread or are you attempting to find scenarios to trip us up with? It won't work.

 

But that's still making an assumption on their circumstance, no? It still leaves the possibility of punishing some women who simply don't deserve to be punished by the state for merely expressing themselves. I do, however, know it's not that simple.

 

I'm still thinking about this issue, and the discussion in the thread has given me a lot to think about.

 

While I feel that the burqa should be phased out of our society, I am still very much against legislating a law to ban it. I do feel that any such law wouldn't achieve its aims.

 

I completely agree, retail staff, security staff, and proprietors should be able to see a persons face, nae, have the right to. But out in public spaces?

 

The general vibe I'm getting from this thread is that most people would like to see it remove for two main reasons: Security and the oppression of women. Again, they're totally valid points. However, how do you enforce a law that is for these womens own good without making life harder for the same women you're trying to help? Leo has made the point that it will hurt the husbands wallet, but isn't that really hurting the family budget? What if these families are already struggling?

 

I also feel that legislating a ban would only further isolate these women from the rest of our society and make it even harder for them to either get help if they are being abused or to bring the more orthodox or extreme Arab communities into the mainstream. We should be trying to encourage these women and the communities that practice wearing the burqa to modernise and realise that here we're big on equal rights for women, not give them the stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how does the enforcement of "a law that is for these womens own good" that would no doubt make "life harder for the same women you're trying to help" differ from the enforcement of any of our other laws that may differ from any laws that they would have lived under back home? Physical discipline of wives who "disgrace" their husbands immediately come to mind.

 

Aren't they already isolated? I recall reading a report about such women not seeking medical assistance because such things would be quite difficult to explain to a gp in our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how does the enforcement of "a law that is for these womens own good" that would no doubt make "life harder for the same women you're trying to help" differ from the enforcement of any of our other laws that may differ from any laws that they would have lived under back home? Physical discipline of wives who "disgrace" their husbands immediately come to mind.

 

Aren't they already isolated? I recall reading a report about such women not seeking medical assistance because such things would be quite difficult to explain to a gp in our society.

When you say 'back home', do you mean the country they come from or the house the reside in here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the difference is, they're here now, in our society. They made a choice to come here. I don't think it's unreasonable that we as a society can say "Here we respect the rights of individuals, we respect the rights of women be treated equally."

 

Although I think I may have missed your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's still making an assumption on their circumstance, no? It still leaves the possibility of punishing some women who simply don't deserve to be punished by the state for merely expressing themselves. I do, however, know it's not that simple.

Sometimes the answer is "tough titties" :)

 

I'm still thinking about this issue, and the discussion in the thread has given me a lot to think about.

 

The general vibe I'm getting from this thread is that most people would like to see it remove for two main reasons: Security and the oppression of women. Again, they're totally valid points. However, how do you enforce a law that is for these womens own good without making life harder for the same women you're trying to help? Leo has made the point that it will hurt the husbands wallet, but isn't that really hurting the family budget? What if these families are already struggling?

Then the family has a choice it can make - fuck off back to Islamistan, learn to do as the Romans do, or not feed their kids (in which case their kids will eventually be removed from them, and a good thing too if religion takes precedence over feeding your kids)

 

I also feel that legislating a ban would only further isolate these women from the rest of our society and make it even harder for them to either get help if they are being abused or to bring the more orthodox or extreme Arab communities into the mainstream. We should be trying to encourage these women and the communities that practice wearing the burqa to modernise and realise that here we're big on equal rights for women, not give them the stick.

We've been trying to get Arabs to modernise since they came here. now we find out that second and third generation Australian Arabs are equally, if not more extreme than their ancestors.

 

Aren't they already isolated? I recall reading a report about such women not seeking medical assistance because such things would be quite difficult to explain to a gp in our society.

They are isolated if they wear a burqa in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to wear my motorcycle helmet in the bank.

 

All it will take is one smart group of bank robbers to rob an Australian bank dressed in the sack to get it banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know ... I don't think it's terribly productive to ban it (along with other face-coverings) altogether.

 

In my ponderings it occurred to me that (with obvious exceptions such as helmets or gorilla suits) in Australian culture covering one's face has many meanings. All of them lead to some negative connotation: secrecy, shame, deception, suspicion. It's something that criminals and dissidents do.

 

So, how about expanding the definition of "suspicious" to include "person who covers their face" or "person who wears a face covering", so as to permit the police to check identities? Our laws already permit banks and supermarkets to require a visible face.

 

I was also moved by the safety considerations, especially for driver and pedestrian safety. I would support rules that extend existing vision requirements for drivers to clothes. And in the case of pedestrians, their choice of vision-restricting clothes should be included in any case for contributory negligence.

 

Basically it shouldn't be about a crusade to save Islamic women in Australia. It should be about identifying existing Australian standards, then enabling their enforcement.

Edited by thesorehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, FWIW I don't know about y'all but in my mind it's rude for someone to leave their sunglasses on when conversing or even just buying a coffee, unless we're outside on a sunny day. The idea being that being able to see each others' face - especially their eyes - is a sign of respect and dignity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is so easy its not even funny.

 

ban.

 

if you need to argue the point your a goose.

I'd argue that if you blindly accept the point without critically examining it, you're an even bigger goose.

 

Hell, even the proponents of the ban in here have examined it, and I applaud them for that rather than playing the 'agree or you're a fool' card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all, we live in a safe country.

As shown by the bombing of the Sydney Hilton and the planned attack on Holsworthy barracks in Sydney.

 

Just move to Melbourne then:P, Compared to other places.. Australia is safe (I should have said).

Fact: Hilton Bombing took place in 1978.

Fact: Sydney planned attacks was in 2009. Failed.. because we live in a Relatively Safe country.

You can't truly be saying 2 isolated incidents 31 years apart make Australia an unsafe country?!

The USA has the September 11 attacks, the UK had those massive bombing in recent years.

I thank my lucky stars we live in a country unspoilt by mass terrorist activy or more.

 

Are you really equating the Kippah to a burqa?

 

When you create arguments like this, 75% of Atomic has their bullshit detector do an Apollo I

Yea um.. why not? 10 years ago no one was talking about banning the burqa (except the racist folk.. )

The point of saying THAT.. which you clearly didn't understand.. was to make an exaggerated remark as to where this may lead.

 

Thankfully common sense still prevails in some countries. (for now).

Edited by jubbing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the policy is that women shouldn't wear it because it's a symbol of their oppression, I'm not sure how fining them or even applying stiffer penalties for wearing it is going to help them in any way.

Them, it won't. Their husbands are the problem. So you hit the husband where it hurts.

 

His wallet.

 

Was referring to your comments about who was going to pay the fine. You were stating it would only affect the husband's income, as the woman wouldn't have a job.

Whether or not the woman has a job, it affects the family's income. And thus the husband's.

 

I'm curious, have you made a salient point in this thread or are you attempting to find scenarios to trip us up with? It won't work.

 

You've stated that fining a women for wearing the burqa won't affect them, it'll affect their husbands, because it'll hit them in the wallet.

 

I stated that burqa-wearing women aren't necessarily unemployed, and could find a means of employment, therefore they'd be paying the fine.

 

This is disregarding the fact that unmarried women in Australia wear the burqa. So if you fine them, you fine them, not their husbands.

 

You and MrFriendly were the ones discussing this scenario, I just stepped in when I saw a flaw in your argument.

 

 

 

 

Also, FWIW I don't know about y'all but in my mind it's rude for someone to leave their sunglasses on when conversing or even just buying a coffee, unless we're outside on a sunny day. The idea being that being able to see each others' face - especially their eyes - is a sign of respect and dignity.

True, but we're not banning sunglasses as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn. I intensely dislike Islam, but I'm of the mindset that this is another piece of nanny state bullshit creeping in on civil liberties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

... The idea being that being able to see each others' face - especially their eyes - is a sign of respect and dignity.

True, but we're not banning sunglasses as a result.

 

The example of sunglasses-etiquette was given to illustrate a common Australian standard - and to check if it was just me or it actually is an accepted norm. Glad you agree with my point. After all:

 

... I don't think it's terribly productive to ban it (along with other face-coverings) altogether....

... read my post carefully. I don't believe banning the burqa is going to work.

Edited by thesorehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

... The idea being that being able to see each others' face - especially their eyes - is a sign of respect and dignity.

True, but we're not banning sunglasses as a result.

 

The example of sunglasses-etiquette was given to illustrate a common Australian standard - and to check if it was just me or it actually is an accepted norm. Glad you agree with my point. After all:

 

... I don't think it's terribly productive to ban it (along with other face-coverings) altogether....

... read my post carefully. I don't believe banning the burqa is going to work.

 

Wasn't having a go at you, was just commenting that we've only focussed on banning on one item, when many have the same effect.

 

If you took my comment as a shot at you, then let me clarify that it wasn't meant to read that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Wasn't having a go at you, was just commenting that we've only focussed on banning on one item, when many have the same effect.

 

If you took my comment as a shot at you, then let me clarify that it wasn't meant to read that way.

:--] cool.

 

yeah, being only focused on one item is a problem, and IMHO this non-principled approach is the cause of most of the debate. That's why the approach has to be brought right back to a more general "what do we want living in our country to be like?" rather than "how do I feel about this particular item of clothing?"

Edited by thesorehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea um.. why not? 10 years ago no one was talking about banning the burqa (except the racist folk.. )

There is nothing racist about banning the burqa.

 

The point of saying THAT.. which you clearly didn't understand.. was to make an exaggerated remark as to where this may lead.

By that same exaggeration there's a slippery smoke between cigarette smoking and murder.

 

You've stated that fining a women for wearing the burqa won't affect them, it'll affect their husbands, because it'll hit them in the wallet.

 

I stated that burqa-wearing women aren't necessarily unemployed, and could find a means of employment, therefore they'd be paying the fine.

 

This is disregarding the fact that unmarried women in Australia wear the burqa. So if you fine them, you fine them, not their husbands.

 

You and MrFriendly were the ones discussing this scenario, I just stepped in when I saw a flaw in your argument.

And once again: it matters not who it hits, it will hit someone. if that woman is unmarried, then she will have to pay $1500 which is a high price to bear for something your religion does not require.

 

If she is married, either she or her husband or both will be impacted by the fine. Also a high price to bear for something your religion does not require.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have read the first and last page, but I'll pitch in with the comment I made while discussing this issue with MrF over a beer the other week: it seems depressingly ironic to me that to curb oppressive control of what women are allowed to wear, we're going to ban them from wearing certain things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have read the first and last page, but I'll pitch in with the comment I made while discussing this issue with MrF over a beer the other week: it seems depressingly ironic to me that to curb oppressive control of what women are allowed to wear, we're going to ban them from wearing certain things.

Most of the thread's been disputing that point :P

 

I agree with you, it's a sad day when we have to replace oppression with oppression and call it liberation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×