Senator calls for burqa ban after robbery (2 Viewers)

[Chemical Ali]

ok so what if 90% of the population are highly uncomfortable seeing aboriginals walking around outside missions (this is pretty much true in some places, e.g. taree)... do we send them b(l)ack?

 

[rATARd]

Is it worth considering the opposite? It's all very well to present arguments like freedom of religion and human rights, but what if you found yourself in the middle east? They're not quite so tolerant of our way of life over there, so why should we be so accepting? The only difference being, there is a practicality in this denial of freedom, while the other stems only from irrational belief.

Realistically though, I can't se a ban on the Burqa being implemented on the grounds that Australia still claims the title of a free country. There would be domestic and global outcry, a mess would be made, muslims would complain. It's all too ugly to have to deal with for the sake of a few potential bank robbers.

We're all inherently racist. I think most people just have an issue with the fact that them thar muslams dun come from hur. Dress it up with legitimate argument all you want. But you're just a closet racist like the rest of us.

 

[aussie-boy]

You cannot force people to interact with other members of society, show them markers such as body language, like other people or even be nice to 99% of the population. What an absurd thing to say.

Umm its called etiquette... hundreds of rules, which we may or may not like, that hold our society together and which we have all made a conscious decision to follow.

Those who don't are vigorously looked down upon, patronised and stereotyped to a point where such behaviour is very rare.

We can force people to do whatever we, as a society, decide they should - personal liberty is actually not as ubiquitous as we are led to believe.

The only reason Muslim women still wear burqas is because they don't leave their little ethnic enclaves where people of the same background have learnt to deal with the impositions I've been talking about - if you moved a burqa clad Muslim family into say Dubbo, their fashion tradition wouldn't last long at all.

 

[Chemical Ali]

Is it worth considering the opposite? It's all very well to present arguments like freedom of religion and human rights, but what if you found yourself in the middle east? They're not quite so tolerant of our way of life over there, so why should we be so accepting? The only difference being, there is a practicality in this denial of freedom, while the other stems only from irrational belief..

I always have to rofl at this half baked abortion of an argument

muslim countries are bad coz they're intolerant

we're better than them

therefore

we should be intolerant too

derp!

 

[murphyad]

We can force people to do whatever we, as a society, decide they should - personal liberty is actually not as ubiquitous as we are led to believe.

Sorry but you are dead wrong on this one.

If I want to wear a burqa, and I harm nobody else in doing so (not being able to speak to people does not count), then I just as entitled to make that decision if I am in a minority than if I am if in a majority.

Think of the bigger picture: why should the state, or majority interests for that matter, mandate what people can wear, for pete's sake?

 

[aussie-boy]

If I want to wear a burqa, and I harm nobody else in doing so (not being able to speak to people does not count)

Yes it does. If you harm the social fabric of Australian society (which I have discussed in depth in previous posts) and I am a part of that society, then you are harming me (+everyone else in that society).

then I just as entitled to make that decision if I am in a minority than if I am if in a majority.

No, the whole idea behind democracy (as opposed to anarchy) is that the majority gets to make the decisions. Minority rights are only granted with the support of the majority. And for the reasons I have described (+other dumb racist ones), that support is not forthcoming at all.

Think of the bigger picture: why should the state, or majority interests for that matter, mandate what people can wear, for pete's sake?

I'm absolutely not in favour of a ban or any legislation not directly related to security reasons. I'm in favour of the ideal that we should be able to drive social etiquette to support our social fabric (there are countless examples of dress standards in Australia - an effective mandate)

[e.g. I want these women to know that it is disrespectful towards me as a waiter when they come to my restaurant and order through their tiny little eye holes - in the same way that it's unacceptable for international students not to learn to walk on the left side of the footpath]

 

[murphyad]

Yes it does. If you harm the social fabric of Australian society (which I have discussed in depth in previous posts) and I am a part of that society, then you are harming me (+everyone else in that society).

It's inaccurate to appeal to 'society' to justify your position. This is because you are relying on a misrepresentation of who constitute 'society' by implicitly omitting those who wear burqas. Burqa-wearers are a part of society, and by wearing one they contribute to Australia's 'social fabric'. They seek to undermine or compromise no-one else in doing so, but are simply expressing their individual preferences. They harm no-one. Based on your logic, people harm themselves by wearing burqas (how, I do not know) which is an irrational assertion.

No, the whole idea behind democracy (as opposed to anarchy) is that the majority gets to make the decisions. Minority rights are only granted with the support of the majority. And for the reasons I have described (+other dumb racist ones), that support is not forthcoming at all.

Democratic ideals are not the only ones valued in this country. The tyranny of the majority is in itself no justification for the abrogation of individual rights.

I'm absolutely not in favour of a ban or any legislation not directly related to security reasons. I'm in favour of the ideal that we should be able to drive social etiquette to support our social fabric (there are countless examples of dress standards in Australia - an effective mandate)

These two sentences are contradictory. The first is pragmatic, the second philosophical. Do you support a burqa ban on pragmatic or philosophical grounds? The way I see it, banning certain types of clothing (as opposed to more benign dress standards) does not somehow support this nebulous and, in your case, ethnocentric, idea of a 'social fabric.'

 

[Chemical Ali]

To be fair, the proportion of people in this society who are Jewish, compared to the society in total, is very, very small. We can safely omit them from our model of German society.

c wat i did?

 

[Garygaz]

Weighing up the fors and againsts in my head, I can think of multiple benefits of banning the burqa and very few benefits of keeping it.

One and only against, they will not get to fulfill their religious duties.

For, less racial profiling, because everyone knows Australians are racist, if it's less explicitly obvious what religious/cultural profile you belong to I can guarantee you you will see less racism overall. Less discrimination/alienation of women. No more burqa clad crims. Less offended members of the general public (who disagree with the sexist/alien nature of the burqa).

imo religion in general should be like smoking should be. In your house, or in private.

 

[yoddle]

Is it worth considering the opposite? It's all very well to present arguments like freedom of religion and human rights, but what if you found yourself in the middle east? They're not quite so tolerant of our way of life over there, so why should we be so accepting? The only difference being, there is a practicality in this denial of freedom, while the other stems only from irrational belief.

Realistically though, I can't se a ban on the Burqa being implemented on the grounds that Australia still claims the title of a free country. There would be domestic and global outcry, a mess would be made, muslims would complain. It's all too ugly to have to deal with for the sake of a few potential bank robbers.

We're all inherently racist. I think most people just have an issue with the fact that them thar muslams dun come from hur. Dress it up with legitimate argument all you want. But you're just a closet racist like the rest of us.

As your other absurd argument that we should engage in a race to the bottom in abolishing individual rights has already been addressed quite adeptly by Chemical Ali, can I just point out that some people may in fact defend the right for women to wear the burqa because we don't believe the government should have the right to dictate what we wear, not because we're closet racists who can't bothered listening to "complaining muslims". While you may take issue with Muslims because they dun come from hur it doesn't mean everybody else does.

Yes it does. If you harm the social fabric of Australian society (which I have discussed in depth in previous posts) and I am a part of that society, then you are harming me (+everyone else in that society).

No, the whole idea behind democracy (as opposed to anarchy) is that the majority gets to make the decisions. Minority rights are only granted with the support of the majority. And for the reasons I have described (+other dumb racist ones), that support is not forthcoming at all.

I'm absolutely not in favour of a ban or any legislation not directly related to security reasons. I'm in favour of the ideal that we should be able to drive social etiquette to support our social fabric (there are countless examples of dress standards in Australia - an effective mandate)

[e.g. I want these women to know that it is disrespectful towards me as a waiter when they come to my restaurant and order through their tiny little eye holes - in the same way that it's unacceptable for international students not to learn to walk on the left side of the footpath]

Instructions on setting up ignore list please?

Weighing up the fors and againsts in my head, I can think of multiple benefits of banning the burqa and very few benefits of keeping it.

One and only against, they will not get to fulfill their religious duties.

For, less racial profiling, because everyone knows Australians are racist, if it's less explicitly obvious what religious/cultural profile you belong to I can guarantee you you will see less racism overall. Less discrimination/alienation of women. No more burqa clad crims. Less offended members of the general public (who disagree with the sexist/alien nature of the burqa).

imo religion in general should be like smoking should be. In your house, or in private.

This is a highly confused argument that in fact practices the racism and discrimination that it aims to address.

• Making religious practices illegal is arguably racist because it marginalises the cultural practices of an immigrant or second/third generation minority
• There have been about 2 "burqa-clad crims", and, as has been pointed out, if banks believe the burqa poses a serious security risk they may ban its wear inside their branches
• Having less offended members of the general public is not a valid argument to ban something. Similar numbers of people who are offended by the burqa are probably offended by homosexuality, do you suggest banning that?
• Less discrimination against women? You are suggesting we do just that in banning the burqa. I agree that the burqa is a symbol of almost mysogyny in soem aspects of Islam, but I don't think it's the government's place to address this.

 

[Graney]

The public display of affection between homosexuals harms the social fabric of Australian society, which is based on heterosexual unions between a man and a woman, undertaken for the purpose of creating life.

Weighing up the fors and againsts in my head, I can think of multiple benefits of banning faggots and very few benefits of allowing them.

One and only against, they will not get to satisfy their perversion.

For, less sexual profiling, because everyone knows Australians are homophobic, if it's less explicitly obvious what sexuality you belong to I can guarantee you you will see less homophobia overall. Less discrimination/alienation of queers. No more arseless chaps clad crims. Less offended members of the general public (who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle).

 

[Garygaz]

The public display of affection between homosexuals harms the social fabric of Australian society, which is based on heterosexual unions between a man and a woman, undertaken for the purpose of creating life.

Weighing up the fors and againsts in my head, I can think of multiple benefits of banning faggots and very few benefits of allowing them.

One and only against, they will not get to satisfy their perversion.

For, less sexual profiling, because everyone knows Australians are homophobic, if it's less explicitly obvious what sexuality you belong to I can guarantee you you will see less homophobia overall. Less discrimination/alienation of queers. No more arseless chaps clad crims. Less offended members of the general public (who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle).

Sexuality is genetic, religion is gobbledygook scripture from sand hippies 1000s of years ago.

 

[Graney]

Sexual preference is a psychological predisposition to certain perceptions and desires. It's not entirely genetic.

Sexual preference is a distinctly different concept from the expression of sexual behaviour. The choice to practice and express a given behaviour is under control of conscious expression to the same degree as choosing how you dress

 

[aussie-boy]

The public display of affection between homosexuals harms the social fabric of Australian society, which is based on heterosexual unions between a man and a woman, undertaken for the purpose of creating life.

Heterosexual, childbearing relationships are a tiny proportion of all the loving that goes on. Homosexuals holding hands do not disrupt the ordinary lives of others, as burqa wearing Muslim women do when they cut themselves off from communication but expect to be served and acknowledged as members of society.

If a person has a problem on grounds that they simply do not like homosexual interactions/get offended, its the same as hating burqas because they are racist towards Muslims; both groups can get fucked.

Weighing up the fors and againsts in my head, I can think of multiple benefits of banning faggots and very few benefits of allowing them.

One and only against, they will not get to satisfy their perversion.

What benefits? Has our society experienced any homosexuality-related problems since it was made legal?

For, less sexual profiling, because everyone knows Australians are homophobic, if it's less explicitly obvious what sexuality you belong to I can guarantee you you will see less homophobia overall. Less discrimination/alienation of queers. No more arseless chaps clad crims. Less offended members of the general public (who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle).

Australians are not homophobic; they are adverse to attempts to hide from basic communication in the community. Homophobia is extremely rare, it's no longer a problem... people like you (if you are serious) are extremely rare or forced to shut up by social pressure from the majority.

 

[Garygaz]

Are you speaking from experience? I'm not gay but from what I know from some of my gay friends is that the so called 'choice' to control their sexuality is pretty much non-existent. I'd imagine it would be the same for you if you were told you could never perform any sexual acts for the entirety of your life, you wouldn't succeed in it. I'd say its about 90% genetic.

On the other hand, religion, which is fine when it doesn't impede on society. I don't see why growing up (in any religion) and having a piece of scripture dictate the rest of society having to adapt to an outdated, irrelevant reading, is okay. Islam takes more away from society then it gives, sure you've got your 'majority' who practice peacefully, but is that really worth all of the negatives that come with it?

As religion grasps over a country, look what happens. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Omen. Oppressed free speech, lack of human rights, discrimination of women, corporal punishment for petty crimes, discrimination against gays (including death penalties), polygamy, child marriages. Look at that summit they had at Lakembah mosque not too long ago, calling for Shariah Law to work along state laws in certain cases. You give any religion a slice of a cake, they'll want the whole thing.

It's just plain and simple, the world works better secularly.

 

[x.christina]

one word: assimilate.

 

[aussie-boy]

On the other hand, religion, which is fine when it doesn't impede on society. I don't see why growing up (in any religion) and having a piece of scripture dictate the rest of society having to adapt to an outdated, irrelevant reading, is okay. Islam takes more away from society then it gives, sure you've got your 'majority' who practice peacefully, but is that really worth all of the negatives that come with it?

As religion grasps over a country, look what happens. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Omen. Oppressed free speech, lack of human rights, discrimination of women, corporal punishment for petty crimes, discrimination against gays (including death penalties), polygamy, child marriages. Look at that summit they had at Lakembah mosque not too long ago, calling for Shariah Law to work along state laws in certain cases. You give any religion a slice of a cake, they'll want the whole thing.

It's just plain and simple, the world works better secularly.

I don't agree with this at all... the Catholic church, for example, does so much good in Australian society (Vinnies, Matthew Talbot hostel, runs a large part of our education system). Likewise, the Anglican church is responsible for Anglicare, Exodus Foundation. I know lots of Muslim girls who wear non face covering burqas who are able to integrate exceptionally well into uni life... they are Australian and know where to draw the religious line.

I think its impossible to make the argument that religion should be stamped out of society - what we should be talking about here is the difference between face covering and non-face covering burqas

 

[Garygaz]

I don't agree with this at all... the Catholic church, for example, does so much good in Australian society (Vinnies, Matthew Talbot hostel, runs a large part of our education system)

I do volunteer work for vinnies, and I'm a non practicing christian (agnostic). A lot of the positives that 'apparantly' come from religion are actually just people who want to give back to the community. I would put money on the fact that if religion wasn't around there would still be as many charities around. Just the same if there were no christian schools i am sure there would have been respectable private schools to fill the void.

and p.s full burqas should be banned

 

[BigBoyJames -]

haaha its un australian.

Listen senator, fuck being Australian. fuck you, fuck Australia and fuck everyone. Im a free individual who will not be told how to dress on public property.