Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> General Board >> the right to choose what to wear http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302598375 Message started by freediver on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 6:52pm

Title: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 6:52pm

Grey wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 1:47am:

Quote:

freediver - Perhaps they are defending a woman's right to choose for herself what to wear rather than having ignorant men choose for her who see her as nothing more than a pawn in a greater conflict.

So you're saying the burqha is the fashion choice that all muslim women take, (in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, et al)? Yeah right.

No. It is a clothing choice that has nothing to do with fashion or religion, and not all Muslim women take it. As has been pointed out, it has nothing to do with religion. Also, the ban is in France, not Afghanistan, though your comparison is understandable.

Quote:

I must say that for somebody ostensibly on the left my tolerance for symbols of oppression is low.

So we must oppress these women to deny them the right to choose a cloth you interpret as representing oppression? Why do you find symbols of opression harder to tolerate than actual oppression?

Quote:

If they can do that to EU citizens in the home of liberty, egality and fraternity

Newsflash, France is no longer the home of liberty.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Grey on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 10:38pm

Quote:

Why do you find symbols of opression harder to tolerate than actual oppression?

Nice try :) I don't of course. Removing whips from people you suspect might use them on their wives, doesn't mean doing nothing if you catch them in the act of actually beating.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Soren on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 10:56pm

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 6:52pm:

Newsflash, France is no longer the home of liberty.

What is, then? If you can't be free in France, where can you be free?

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Inner Health Plus on Apr 12^th, 2011 at 11:26pm

sorens house

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by freediver on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 7:45pm

Quote:

Nice try Smiley I don't of course. Removing whips from people you suspect might use them on their wives, doesn't mean doing nothing if you catch them in the act of actually beating.

You are happy to deny women the right to choose for themselves what to wear. But you cannot tolerate them wearing what you percieve as a symbol of the denial of their right to choose what to wear.

Quote:

What is, then? If you can't be free in France, where can you be free?

America has had a firmer grasp on Freedom than France for a long time. Even Australia does. We put 'live and let live' into practice.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Grey on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 8:18pm

Quote:

You are happy to deny women the right to choose for themselves what to wear. But you cannot tolerate them wearing what you percieve as a symbol of the denial of their right to choose what to wear.

It's a called a paradox, get there and you're not far off the truth.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by freediver on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 8:20pm

You say pardox, I say hypocrisy.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Grey on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 8:39pm

Quote:

You say pardox, I say hypocrisy.

It's not hpocrisy to fight fire with fire.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by freediver on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:38pm

You combat the denial to women of the right to choose what to wear by denying women the right to choose what to wear? How does that work? That is not fighting fire with fire, that is burning the victim.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by darkhall67 on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:42pm

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:38pm:

They ARENT choosing.

They are being brainwashed.

Time for an intervention.

Time for a deprogramming.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by freediver on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:48pm

So these women are too feeble minded to make their own choice and you have to make it for them? No means yes, right?

What if I choose to cover my face? Does that mean I am brainwashed too?

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Grey on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:55pm

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:38pm:

The Burqa has nothing to do with religion, it has nothing to do with fashion, it has nothing to do with choice. What it does have to do with, is a patriarchal society so oppressive that women are denied an education, denied equality, denied the right to even sit inside a car and are made to sit in the boot and are denied the right to decide what to wear.

If confronting that attitude means I have to sacrifice an ideal or two of my own I can live with that. Australia - we don't do burqas - sounds good to me.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by darkhall67 on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 10:15pm

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:48pm:

So these women are too feeble minded to make their own choice and you have to make it for them? No means yes, right?

What if I choose to cover my face? Does that mean I am brainwashed too?

Why is it that religious people defend the "rights" of other , different religious people to oppress their members even though it goes against tier own stated religious beliefs?

Could it be that they realise that if society takes a stand against one form of injustice and oppression , they will be more likely to take a stand against another religions injustice and oppression and "right" to indoctrinate their children?

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by freediver on Apr 14^th, 2011 at 9:46pm

Quote:

The Burqa has nothing to do with religion, it has nothing to do with fashion, it has nothing to do with choice.

Thongs have nothing to do with choice either. They are just a piece of rubber. Yet I still choose to wear them. The veil is about modesty - you are forcing hse women to adopt your standard of modesty. You are forcing women to expose themselves against their will, all the while insisting it is for their own good.

Quote:

What it does have to do with, is a patriarchal society so oppressive that women are denied an education, denied equality, denied the right to even sit inside a car and are made to sit in the boot and are denied the right to decide what to wear.

So you get to make up what it is about? A piece of clothing is all about education and rights - except the right to choos what to wear? You are doing your best to make this about everything but the viel, because you cannot justify it unless you pretend that banning it is some big victory for the education of girls in Afghanistan. You cannot justify your stance unless you make it about something totally unrelated. You would deny people real freedom in order to claim an idiotic victory over what you percieve as a symbol of oppression. It is pure hypocrisy.

Quote:

If confronting that attitude means I have to sacrifice an ideal or two of my own I can live with that.

You you confront the attitude that men should control every aspect of a woman's life by controlling what women choose to wear? You are copying the attitude, not confronting it and you seem oblivious to the absurdity of it.

Quote:

Why is it that religious people defend the "rights" of other , different religious people to oppress their members even though it goes against tier own stated religious beliefs?

Is this another attempt to turn freedom on it's head and make this about something other than whether a woman can choose what to wear?

Quote:

Could it be that they realise that if society takes a stand against one form of injustice and oppression , they will be more likely to take a stand against another religions injustice and oppression and "right" to indoctrinate their children?

Do you ever pick up on the hypocrisy in your statements? You are not taking a stand against oppression, you are creating your own oppression while deluding yourself that it is somehow effective in combatting a different flavour of oppression. Banning the viel is no victory for women's rights. It will achieve nothing for women's rights. It just takes their most basic rights away. The denial of their rights is real, the victory over oppression is a delusion.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Yadda on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 7:57am

freediver wrote on Apr 14^th, 2011 at 9:46pm:

Quote:

The Burqa has nothing to do with religion, it has nothing to do with fashion, it has nothing to do with choice.

Thongs have nothing to do with choice either. They are just a piece of rubber. Yet I still choose to wear them. The veil is about modesty - you are forcing hse women to adopt your standard of modesty. You are forcing women to expose themselves against their will, all the while insisting it is for their own good.

These moslem women who choose to cover their faces, invariably, are not 'modest' people.

Dictionary;
modest = =
1 unassuming in the estimation of one’s abilities.
2 relatively moderate, limited, or small.
3 decent; decorous.

These moslem women cover their faces because in an open society, they do not want others to see who they are.
i.e.
In an open society, they choose to conceal who they are.
Such behaviour, conduct, in an open society is not appropriate.

IMAGE

ARE THESE, 'MODEST' WOMEN ???

e.g. #2
WAS THIS FOLLOWING, VEILED MOSLEM WOMAN, 'MODEST' ???...

The NSW police officer, was accused by a moslem woman of racism, and of trying to rip away her face covering, when he stopped her vehicle.

And after having being shown to have lied [video evidence], this 'modest' moslem woman expressed absolutely no remorse or contrition, and continued to insist that her accusation was true, even after being confronted with the video evidence.

"...the story of the Sydney policeman who happened to stop a veiled lady.
[the moslem woman, accused that...] the policeman was a racist, shouted at her, grabbed her veil and wanted to pull it off.
[But...] it appears the policeman spoke very politely to the lady from beginning to end."
http://www.australianislamistmonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3528:conning-the-world-veiling-the-truth-with-bedazzling-burkas&catid=203&Itemid=59

+++

IMAGE

THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE 'CLOTHING', IN AUSTRALIA [an open society], IN PUBLIC.

Certainly not appropriate in Australia, for persons driving a motor vehicle or for persons conducting any 'business' transaction in any public place.

IMO, 'when in Rome' [when living within non-moslem host nations], moslems should not be permitted to conduct themselves, as though they are residing in Saudi Arabia.

CONTRAWISE;
Would Australian women be allowed to lay on beaches in Saudi Arabia, IN THEIR BIKINIS ???

Q.
Why not ???

A.
Because such a thing would be offensive to Saudi cultural mores.

IMAGE
http://www.theluxechronicles.com/.a/6a00e54f05e1bb88340120a6ab2571970c-700wi
THIS BEHAVIOUR, CHOOSING TO DRESS LIKE THIS, IN PUBLIC, IS APPROPRIATE IN SAUDI ARABIA

But such behaviour, choosing to wear such attire, in public, in Australia, is offensive to Australian cultural mores.

A veiled woman can see my face, when she interacts, WITH ME [an Australian].

I want the right to see your face, WHEN I INTERACT WITH YOU.

THAT, is the Australian way.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Yadda on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 8:21am

More 'modest' moslem women....

IMAGE

The placards read....
"Arrest Jack Straw"
"The veil is Womens Liberation"
"Arrest Jack Straw for Inciting Religious Hatred"
"Jack Straw Judeo-Christian Terrorist"
"Jack Straw Oppressor of Muslim Women"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/arrest-jack-straw.html

THE VEIL IS A POLITICAL SYMBOL

THE VEIL IS A POLITICAL SYMBOL

THE VEIL IS A POLITICAL SYMBOL

THE VEIL IS A POLITICAL SYMBOL

When moslem women, in non-moslem host nations, wear the face covering burqa in public, moslems are making a political statement;

"OUR ISLAMIC CULTURE WILL OVERWHELM YOUR INFERIOR UN-ISLAMIC CULTURE."

+++

Google;
can sharia sedition and U.S. Constitution coexist

Google;
islam is not in america to coexist

+++

Quote:

"THE RIGHT TO JUDGE"
"It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world **or to co-exist** in the same land together with a jahili system........"

SAYYID QUTB - ISLAMIC scholar
http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html

The 'Jahiliyya' lifestyle is totally incompatible with ISLAM.

And in fact, to devout moslems, the mere *existence* of non-moslem communities is viewed as insulting to the authority of ISLAM.
...because you see, moslems 'deserve' to have 'authority', to rule the whole world, for Allah.

Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia...

Quote:

"....Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law, without which Islam cannot exist;"
"...true Islam is a complete system with no room for any element of Jahiliyya"
"...all aspects of Jahiliyya...are "evil and corrupt" "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya#Jahiliyya_in_contemporary_society

+++

If moslem women truly seek merely a modest form of dress, why don't they merely cover their hair ???

As PER some examples of modest moslem womens' dress shown here....

"Burqua ban start on Monday"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302320458/105#105

Why must some moslem women INSIST on concealing their identity, when they appear in public, on Australian streets ???

THAT type of conduct [concealing our identity when we appear in public, on Australian streets], is not acceptable to Australian cultural mores.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Grey on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 12:11pm

This debate has come a long way.

Quote:

freediver - In that case, no I do not think most muslims are moderate. They may not aspire to rule the world themselves, but they aspire it for their co-religionists. Furthermore, everyone seeks some degree of power, even if it is merely self determination. It is what people would do with that power that makes them moderate or extreme. Ask a 'moderate' muslim what sort of rules they would have in an ideal world about democracy, freedom of religion, equality of women before the law etc. You appear to be projecting your own views of mdoeration onto Muslims, justified by little more than the fact that they can manage to hold down a job like everyone else. This does not make them the same as you and you are being no less naive than someone who asserts a Nazi is moderate if he can pay off a mortgage and refrain from personally slaughtering jews.

I suspect that what you fail to realise is that democracy and personal freedom require more than being tolerated if they are to survive. They require active protection. Those who fail to do so inevitably loose their freedom and their right to govern themselves. You would have us trade freedom and democracy for tolerance out of ignorance of the threat. Being able to tolerate democracy and freedom does not make someone moderate. It merely makes them patient.

Freediver, who doesn't want a Muslim in Australia, doesn't believe in 'moderate muslims', is now defending to the last the ultimate symbol of Islamofascism the burqa.

Can clothing be a flag? Are these men, (?) preserving their modesty?

Is it coincidence that in Yadda's images of Islamic extremists the women are all wearing burqa's? I think not.

But this thread is not about the burqa, there's another dealing with that issue.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Soren on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 12:19pm

FD thinks it is against OUR freedoms to expect niqabis to show their faces.

This just in:
David Cameron: migration threatens our way of life
David Cameron will claim today that uncontrolled immigration has undermined some British communities.

In his most forthright speech on the issue since he became Prime Minister, he will say that mass immigration has led to "discomfort and disjointedness" in neighbourhoods because some migrants have been unwilling to integrate or learn English.

Pledging to cut the numbers entering Britain to tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands, Mr Cameron will say that "for too long, immigration has been too high".

He will also promise to "stamp out" forced marriages, saying that "cultural sensitivity" cannot be allowed to stop the Government from acting.

In the speech to party members in Hampshire, the Prime Minister will attack Labour for claiming it was racist to talk about immigration, saying it is "untruthful and unfair" not to speak about the issue, however uncomfortable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8449324/David-Cameron-migration-threatens-our-way-of-life.html

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Grey on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 12:37pm

Soren - the UK is simply not comparable to Australia on matters of immigration/population density.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by freediver on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 10:42pm

Quote:

Freediver, who doesn't want a Muslim in Australia, doesn't believe in 'moderate muslims', is now defending to the last the ultimate symbol of Islamofascism the burqa.

No Grey. I don't care much for symbolism. What I am protecting is my own right to choose what to wear. And yours. If a few Muslim women happen to maintain the same right in the process, why is that such a bad thing? You need to stop pretending that the right to choose is about something other than the right to choose.

Quote:

Can clothing be a flag? Are these men, (?) preserving their modesty?

Are those clothes banned anywhere in the world? Did America have to ban them to achieve freedom?

Quote:

FD thinks it is against OUR freedoms to expect niqabis to show their faces.

Soren, you cannot deny someone else freedom without denying it to yourself. Just because you happen to want to dress the way the government dictates does not mean you are free to choose for yourself.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Grey on Apr 16^th, 2011 at 12:24am

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 10:42pm:

Ahhh free, but what are 'rights' and 'freedom' ? They are defined by their limits. We just have a difference of opinion on what to limit.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by freediver on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 3:11pm

Quote:

Ahhh free, but what are 'rights' and 'freedom' ?

Good of you to ask, as the quest to ban the burqa seems to come down to changing their meaning.

Quote:

They are defined by their limits. We just have a difference of opinion on what to limit.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Grey on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 5:42pm

Quote:

However, if people simply walk away then I find myself doomed to repeat the lengthy and tiresome debate from the beginning, where they merely show more skill and chopping and changing their arguments in the face of scrutiny.

An unwieldy sentence, but I catch the drift. Which is why I think we should keep this topic on topic and confine the burqa to its own thread.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Soren on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 6:52pm

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 3:11pm:

Quote:

Ahhh free, but what are 'rights' and 'freedom' ?

Good of you to ask, as the quest to ban the burqa seems to come down to changing their meaning.

[quote]They are defined by their limits. We just have a difference of opinion on what to limit.

This is a good place to start.

The rights and freedoms of one individual are constrained where they begin to infringe on the rights and freedoms of another individual. This is where opinions may differ and where the genuine debate is. However, for you to have any real argument you would have to come up with an explanation of how a woman choosing what to wear infringes on your rights. This is where it gets a bit ludicrous. Typical examples I have seen include ascribing rights to communities rather than individuals. This is basically an attempt by one person to claim to speak on behalf of everyone, but it never seems to get round to defining the actual rights. The other strategy I have seen lately involves inventing new rights, such as the right to see a woman's skin if she ventures into public. These invariably take them form of insisting that people have a right to deny other people their rights. Both of these strategies rely on disassociating rights from individuals. That is, your rights no longer refer to your acts, your choices, your self, but rather are applied to your interactions with other people or to some amorphous 'community' or 'culture'. The very thing that rights protect individuals from - government imposed 'normalcy' or the loss of the right to be different - become the subject of rights and are supposedly protected by them. That is, it is supposedly our right as a community to deny individuals choice without good reason. The concepts of rights and freedoms are turned on their head, because this is the only way to justify the banning of an item of clothing.

If you can come up with a differing opinion that is not absurd, I would be glad to hear it, but I take issue with you describing this as 'merely' a difference of opinion when you are so clearly in the wrong.

I have found that if I follow this debate through to it's end, people eventually concede that a woman does in fact have a right to choose for herself what to wear and that a community does not have a right to remove her clothes from her body, regardless of the convenience or conformity such an act achieves. However, if people simply walk away then I find myself doomed to repeat the lengthy and tiresome debate from the beginning, where they merely show more skill and chopping and changing their arguments in the face of scrutiny.[/quote]

If Muslims can be offended by cartoons like this to the degree that they will murder people, non-Muslims have every reason to be offended by the burqa and the niqab in their own countries.

Women wearing face covering are signalling that they are as completely Islamic as it is possible. I find that offensive. Others may find the face covering merely uncomfortable (like Jack Straw, like Hollowbone, Bernardi and others).

Islam is about eroding every single tenet of western liberal democracy. Every single one. I am not aware of one compromise of Islam that muslims have been prepared to offer or even consider. I see the burqa as a slap in the face.

Accommodating the burqa is not about women's right but about accommodating a creed that is hostile to liberal democracy. The burqa is not a quaint folk costume, it is the black flag of islam as worn by women. I don't want the black flag of Islam accommodated in any way, not even under the guise of women's rights. Guise, mind, for they have zero regard for women's rights unless it is their right to be as completly submissive to Islam as possible. That's what the burqa is about.

You go ahead and tolerate it all you like, FD. I won't, and I don't have to.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Foolosophy on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 7:03pm

Soren must be listened to in here

His opinions are sensible and well thought out

I know I am very impressed with his supreme compassion and ability to understand the humanist side of existence

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Soren on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 7:09pm

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 7:03pm:

Soren must be listened to in here

His opinions are sensible and well thought out

I know I am very impressed with his supreme compassion and ability to understand the humanist side of existence

Stupid drongo.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Foolosophy on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 7:16pm

Soren wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 7:09pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 7:03pm:

Soren must be listened to in here

His opinions are sensible and well thought out

I know I am very impressed with his supreme compassion and ability to understand the humanist side of existence

Stupid drongo.

seems like Soren is also a very sensitive soul

very touching

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by freediver on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 7:56pm

Quote:

If Muslims can be offended by cartoons like this to the degree that they will murder people, non-Muslims have every reason to be offended by the burqa and the niqab in their own countries.

So what is your point Soren? You are allowed to be an idiot because Muslims are?

Quote:

Women wearing face covering are signalling that they are as completely Islamic as it is possible. I find that offensive.

You keep forgetting Soren. I don't care how you feel about it. You can get as offended as you want.

Quote:

Others may find the face covering merely uncomfortable (like Jack Straw, like Hollowbone, Bernardi and others).

Or, they may not care at all what people wear. I have never worn one, but I am happy to take Bernardi's word for it.

Quote:

Islam is about eroding every single tenet of western liberal democracy.

And you want to beat them to it? You also reject the tenets of westrern liberal democracy.

Quote:

I am not aware of one compromise of Islam that muslims have been prepared to offer or even consider.

They agreed to ban slavery.

Quote:

Accommodating the burqa is not about women's right but about accommodating a creed that is hostile to liberal democracy.

Soren you are confusing a piece of cloth with a creed.

Quote:

The burqa is not a quaint folk costume, it is the black flag of islam as worn by women.

It is not mandated by Islam. Even in France only a small minority wear it. The quaint folk costume is a far more appropriate analogy. You are getting all wound up over the wrong thing. It is cultural baggage, just like most of what you confuse for Australian values.

Quote:

You go ahead and tolerate it all you like, FD. I won't, and I don't have to

.

So what are you going to do? Shake your fist in the air? Harass these women you claim are oppressed?

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Yadda on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 9:15am

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 3:11pm:

I have found that if I follow this debate through to it's end, people eventually concede that a woman does in fact have a right to choose for herself what to wear and that a community does not have a right to remove her clothes from her body, regardless of the convenience or conformity such an act achieves.

One question which could be posed, is;
Does a woman have a right to choose for herself what to wear ?

But another question which can be legitimately posed is;
Does anyone, when in any public place, have the right to hide their face [and thereby hide their identity] ?

Is it lawful ?

Perhaps.

Maybe such behaviour is not unlawful [yet].

But such behaviour by anyone, offends our 'Western' cultural mores.

And, imo, such 'personal choices', are certainly not appropriate in Australia.

To be dressed in such a way, is certainly not appropriate in Australia, for persons driving a motor vehicle, or, for persons conducting any 'business' transaction in any public place.

Logically;
IMO, 'when in Rome' [when living within non-moslem host nations], moslems should not be permitted to conduct themselves, as though they are residing in Saudi Arabia.

Why not?

Because 1/ this is behaviour which is both offensive to our cultural mores, and 2/ can be viewed as an intentional cultural provocation, by moslems.
[Re, point #2, if moslems do not wish to offend OUR sensibilities, then why do moslems intentionally seek to provoke the Australian community, on this issue ??? ]

e.g.
CONTRAWISE;
Would Australian women be allowed to lay on beaches in Saudi Arabia, IN THEIR BIKINIS ???

Of course not.

Q.
Why not ???

A.
Because such a thing would be offensive to Saudi cultural mores.

And neither should moslem women, seek to offend our 'sensibilities', regarding our own cultural mores.

IMAGE
http://www.theluxechronicles.com/.a/6a00e54f05e1bb88340120a6ab2571970c-700wi
THIS BEHAVIOUR, CHOOSING TO DRESS LIKE THIS, IN PUBLIC, IS APPROPRIATE IN SAUDI ARABIA

But such behaviour, choosing to wear such attire, in public, in Australia, is offensive to Australian cultural mores.

A veiled woman can see my face, when she interacts, WITH ME [an Australian].

I want the right to see your face, WHEN I INTERACT WITH YOU.

THAT, is the Australian way.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Soren on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:38pm

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

Quote:

The burqa is not a quaint folk costume, it is the black flag of islam as worn by women.

It is not mandated by Islam. Even in France only a small minority wear it. The quaint folk costume is a far more appropriate analogy. You are getting all wound up over the wrong thing. It is cultural baggage, just like most of what you confuse for Australian values.

Really? Well, it's not for you to decide what the facecovering is. For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

Muslim Council: women cannot debate wearing veil
The body which claims to be the voice of Britain's Muslims has told women that wearing the veil is "not open to debate".

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said that not covering the face is a "shortcoming" and suggested that any Muslims who advocate being uncovered could be guilty of rejecting Islam.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8455955/Muslim-Council-women-cannot-debate-wearing-veil.html

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Foolosophy on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:43pm

...the stench of ignorance and racism has wafted into this thread all of a sudden

I wonder who that could be?

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Soren on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:59pm

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:43pm:

...the stench of ignorance and racism has wafted into this thread all of a sudden

I wonder who that could be?

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) .

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Yadda on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 2:21pm

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:43pm:

...the stench of ignorance and racism has wafted into this thread all of a sudden

I wonder who that could be?

Yes, we all get the 'message', Fool.

Everyone who's opinion, does not align with your own [opinion], is clearly a racist or a bigot [...according to you].

+++

More sweet syrupy lies, and falsehood, from the OzPol forum dissembler.

"Are these the Biblical end times ?"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1301108952/43#43

Quote:

Foolosophy,

I will not respond to any further query from you, nor to any further statement of some outlandish 'fact' which you make, in any post in OzPol.
Except to respond with this message, and with a link to this message - so as to explain to others, my response to your inane, irrational worldview.
Clearly, people can believe whatever they want to believe.
But i do not wish to respond to your many outlandish assertions, unsupported in truth, which effectively state that 'black' is 'white', and vice versa.
I do not want to engage with your idiocy, or with your demented worldview, which is devoid of respect for truth.

Foolosophy,

Again, you should attach a declaration with each of your posts;

"Hi, my nick is Foolosophy. And i clearly do not know what i am talking about. So just ignore this post."
"Does God treat different people differently"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1300677736/28#28

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by freediver on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm

Quote:

But such behaviour by anyone, offends our 'Western' cultural mores.

No Yadda. Cultural mores do not have feelings. We have been 'offending' our cultural mores for a century by gradually doing away with wearing English clothes in hot weather. This is not a bad thing. Cultural mores have no rights and should never be used as an excuse to take rights away from real people.

Quote:

Really? Well, it's not for you to decide what the facecovering is.

You seem to think it is for you? I am happy to let people decide for themselves.

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

For me, it is a personal freedom issue. I also have the right to choose what to wear and am not going to give it up. You keep forgetting Soren that you cannot deny rights to others without denying them to yourself.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Yadda on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:01am

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

But such behaviour by anyone, offends our 'Western' cultural mores.

No Yadda. Cultural mores do not have feelings. We have been 'offending' our cultural mores for a century by gradually doing away with wearing English clothes in hot weather. This is not a bad thing. Cultural mores have no rights and should never be used as an excuse to take rights away from real people.

But people do.

And i am a person.

FD,
Our cultural mores are a reflection of ourselves, and reflection of our personal worldview, and a reflection of the personal values we hold.

And that is undeniable, even when you choose to deny it.

Your denial, and the insinuation in your statement that our [i.e. non-moslem] cultural mores have no [community] worth, offends truth.

Dictionary;
mores = = the customs and conventions of a community.

Dictionary;
custom = = a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time. Ø Law established usage having the force of law or right.

Dictionary;
convention = = a way in which something is usually done. Ø socially acceptable behaviour.

+++

And regards to the supposed 'right' of moslem women to wear a face covering burke, in public, in Australia,
I WILL RE-STATE.....

Yadda wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 9:15am:

Does anyone, when in any public place, have the right to hide their face [and thereby hide their identity] ?

Is it lawful ?

Perhaps.

Maybe such behaviour is not unlawful [yet].

But such behaviour by anyone, offends our 'Western' cultural mores.

And, imo, such 'personal choices', are certainly not appropriate in Australia.

To be dressed in such a way, is certainly not appropriate in Australia, for persons driving a motor vehicle, or, for persons conducting any 'business' transaction in any public place.

Logically;
IMO, 'when in Rome' [when living within non-moslem host nations], moslems should not be permitted to conduct themselves, as though they are residing in Saudi Arabia.

Why not?

Because 1/ this is behaviour which is both offensive to our cultural mores, and 2/ can be viewed as an intentional cultural provocation, by moslems.
[Re, point #2, if moslems do not wish to offend OUR sensibilities, then why do moslems intentionally seek to provoke the Australian community, on this issue ??? ]

e.g.
CONTRAWISE;
Would Australian women be allowed to lay on beaches in Saudi Arabia, IN THEIR BIKINIS ???

Of course not.

Q.
Why not ???

A.
Because such a thing would be offensive to Saudi cultural mores.

And neither should moslem women, seek to offend our 'sensibilities', regarding our own cultural mores.

IMAGE
http://www.theluxechronicles.com/.a/6a00e54f05e1bb88340120a6ab2571970c-700wi
THIS BEHAVIOUR, CHOOSING TO DRESS LIKE THIS, IN PUBLIC, IS APPROPRIATE IN SAUDI ARABIA

But such behaviour, choosing to wear such attire, in public, in Australia, is offensive to Australian cultural mores.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Soren on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:54am

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere. If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.
You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by gizmo_2655 on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:38pm

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere. If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.
You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

That's not entirely true Soren.....There is a 'right' to cover your face in public...however it's balanced against the rights of law enforcement to ascertain identity (as in comparing your face against your photo id) and security concerns in relation to armed robbery....

If there was "NO right"...every snow-skier and motorcyclist (and a lot of bicycle riders) would be arrest every time they walked outside...

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Belgarion on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:49pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:38pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere. If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.
You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

The right of a skier or motocyclist etc, to cover their face is only for a specific activity and is for recognised safety reasons. It's not a full time concealment of identity based on spurious doctrine.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by gizmo_2655 on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:33pm

Belgarion wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:38pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere. If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.
You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

True...but it's STILL legal...except within certain, limited circumstances....

I have no problems with the full face, or full body veils....PROVIDING they're removed in the same circumstances as motorcycle helmets and balaclavas.....

Give the number of banks that are atm only, and public transport system in major cities...
A 'blanket' ban is unnecessary...I can see the point behind some situations where the full veil is a problem..but I can ALSO see and accept the rights of the women to wear them if they choose (outside of the aforementioned circumstances)....

Ok, perhaps the police should do it like they do with shoplifters..call a female officer to check the face against the photo....it's still doable...

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Foolosophy on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:44pm

Yadda wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 2:21pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:43pm:

...the stench of ignorance and racism has wafted into this thread all of a sudden

I wonder who that could be?

Yes, we all get the 'message', Fool.

Everyone who's opinion, does not align with your own [opinion], is clearly a racist or a bigot [...according to you].

Yadda, please dont exaggerate what I say in here

Its not everyone - just SOREN and your good self

http://thehumanscorch.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/1243271414_black_guy_laughing.gif?w=228&h=180

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Yadda on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:47pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Belgarion wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

True...but it's STILL legal...except within certain, limited circumstances....

I have no problems with the full face, or full body veils....PROVIDING they're removed in the same circumstances as motorcycle helmets and balaclavas.....

Give the number of banks that are atm only, and public transport system in major cities...
A 'blanket' ban is unnecessary...I can see the point behind some situations where the full veil is a problem..but I can ALSO see and accept the rights of the women to wear them if they choose (outside of the aforementioned circumstances)....

Ok, perhaps the police should do it like they do with shoplifters..call a female officer to check the face against the photo....it's still doable...

Your dreaming.

The whole reason that moslem women wear the burke, is so that they can conceal their faces, can conceal their apparent identity [claimed on grounds of female 'modesty'], in public.

So as to prevent 'others' [i.e. complete 'strangers' ] from ascertaining their apparent identity / 'form'.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by gizmo_2655 on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 4:01pm

Yadda wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Belgarion wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

Yadda, are you 100% sure that it's NOT female modesty(in every case) that motivates the Burka????

I mean, there are women/girls in Australia who'd wear 'gladwrap' bikinis...if they thought it'd score them a rich hubby( yes I KNOW..demeaning and sexists)...why is it so surprising that some women are 'modest' and 'DON'T' want to show their "goodies'?????

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Yadda on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 4:30pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Belgarion wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

gizmo,

Sorry, BUT FEMALE MODESTY IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE [re burkes].

SCENARIO;

The issue here, is that if my religion tells me, that i should be free to walk down Mainstreet, naked,
....SHOULD I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT ???

Should i [...or anyone else] have the right to go naked in public, on the basis that i am merely expressing my 'religious freedom/rights' to do so [i.e. to go naked in public] ???

It is the very same logic that is being used, by those defending the right of moslem women to conceal their apparent identity, in a culture such as ours.

I refer you to my argument against such a right, here....
"The case against Islamic immigration"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302598375/28#28

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by Soren on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 5:07pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:38pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:15pm:

Quote:

For Muslims, it is a religious issue, not a personal freedom issue.

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere. If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.
You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

I don't think you are correct. Just because something is not against the law does not mean that it is, therefore, a right, in the sense of being a good, proper, principled and fair thing, let alone in the sense of entitlement.
Farting is a crowded lift is not against the law but you don't have, therefore, the 'right' to fart in a lift.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:35pm

Quote:

But people do.

And i am a person.

So am I, and I am not offended. Nor do I care whether you are offended. I do not even believe you are offended. I think you are feigning offence.

Quote:

Our cultural mores are a reflection of ourselves

No. They are a projection of ourselves onto other people. They are a cheap way to pretend to speak for the community when they do not actually share you values. They are a common way to try to impose your will on others. That is why you do not say that the burqa offends your values. Instead you try to pretend it offends everyone, in the hope that this may finally get people to care what you think.

Quote:

There is NO right to cover your identity in the public sphere.

Yes there is. Always has been. You are confusing custom with responsibility.

Quote:

If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.

Taking a photo for identification is not the same situation as being in public. No-one is compelled to have a photo taken for ID purposes unless they get arrested or enter into an arrangement that requires it.

Quote:

You are making upo this crap as you go, FD.

No Soren. I am the only one here who does not chop and change his argument in response to criticism.

Quote:

The right of a skier or motocyclist etc, to cover their face is only for a specific activity and is for recognised safety reasons.

No Belgarion. We did not invent special exceptions. It was our right to cover our face in public, without giving any reason at all.

Quote:

It's not a full time concealment of identity based on spurious doctrine.

Rights are independent of motive.

Quote:

So as to prevent 'others' [i.e. complete 'strangers' ] from ascertaining their apparent identity / 'form'.

What are you on about Yadda? Do you suspect them of being aliens or something?

Quote:

Sorry, BUT FEMALE MODESTY IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE [re burkes].

Yadda, people may cover themselves for whatever reason they want, including modesty. You do not get to choose their motives for them.

Quote:

Should i [...or anyone else] have the right to go naked in public

Yes you should, and in plenty of places you can. We have come a long way from our victorian background, when our women had to wear a full length woolen gown at the beach. Our culture is actually far closer to that of Islam than our current law. Our current standards are a rejection of our culture and history, not a reflection of it.

Quote:

I don't think you are correct.

He is Soren. You are wrong.

Quote:

Just because something is not against the law does not mean that it is, therefore, a right

Actually, that is the simplest definition of a right.

Quote:

in the sense of being a good, proper, principled and fair thing

That is the worst definition of a right I have ever heard. That sounds more like the BS excuses that the 'culture police' such as yourself give for denying people rights. No wonder you have such trouble with this debate. You have no understanding at all of what rights are. No wonder you don't get Australian culture.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Grey on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:40pm

What happened to the right for a thread to stay on topic?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Jasignature on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:48pm

How embarressing it would be for a society, for women to use a form of attire to express that they have been raped.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 9:03pm

Life_goes_on wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 1:48pm:

Quote:

It is indeed my right to see the face of anyone, anywhere in a public place. I don't care what the religious or cultural imperatives, the common good overrules them all. In this case the right of every person to be able to recognise who they may be dealing with at any time.

You must be a laugh when you encounter a wilderness koala.

;D And it just keeps coming. Covering our face in public is so common we don't even notice it. Soren et all parade around claiming that our society demands people expose their face in public, yet are so accostomed to masks that they are blind to all the ones they see in their daily lives.

Title: Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Post by gizmo_2655 on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 10:10pm

Yadda wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 3:33pm:

Belgarion wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

gizmo,

Sorry, BUT FEMALE MODESTY IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE [re burkes].
SCENARIO;

The issue here, is that if my religion tells me, that i should be free to walk down Mainstreet, naked,
....SHOULD I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT ???

Should i [...or anyone else] have the right to go naked in public, on the basis that i am merely expressing my 'religious freedom/rights' to do so [i.e. to go naked in public] ???

It is the very same logic that is being used, by those defending the right of moslem women to conceal their apparent identity, in a culture such as ours.

I refer you to my argument against such a right, here....
"The case against Islamic immigration"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302598375/28#28

Yes Yadda, female modesty IS the ONLY issue here...

As for the public nudity thing....be honest, there's less than 10% of people that you'd 'want' to see naked.... for every Elle McPherson..there's 40 Magda Szubanski's...

MOST people look a whole lot better dressed (even in floor length robes) than they do in bikinis or tights...or naked...That's aesthetics..nothing to do with choice, or religion or culture...

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by gizmo_2655 on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 10:29pm

The Burqa predates Islam by around 500 years..it's cultural , not religious...and limited to only certain countries....

"There is evidence that this type of dress was worn by some Arab and Persian women long before Islam. For example, the Roman African Christian Tertullian, writing in Chapter 17 of The Veiling of Virgins around 200 AD, praises the modesty of those "pagan women of Arabia" who "not only cover their head, but their whole face...preferring to enjoy half the light with one eye rather than prostituting their whole face" .Strabo, writing in the first century AD, also refers to covering the face as a practice of some Persian women (Geography 11.13. 9–10)."

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by mozzaok on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 12:38am

Quote:

FD

Well if you think that women so repressed as to believe that showing their faces in public is a standard that aussies should accept, you are wrong.

You say these women make this choice, but even if that is the case, for something as perverse as being made to feel like a slut for showing your face, is a pretty extreme psychology to develop, and any cultural attitudes and standards that would further such a sick way of thinking, should broach no acceptance in australian culture, it is not our way.

We do not wear masks in public, and despite the ludicrous comparisons with beards and sunglasses, that unassailable fact remains, it is not a part of our culture, and the culture that promotes the mask in question at the moment is a very sick one if it's aim is to make women feel like filthy whores for just showing their face in public, I mean, can it get much sicker than that?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Jasignature on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 6:52am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQO1qZD5lek

Nobody likes the Secrets and Lies of Politics.
So why we should have the Hidings and Restraints of Fashion
is silly to say the least.

Mind you, the Burqua is a very practical attire in Deserts if ever there was one.
Just a shame that 'city' orientated Ango-Saxons (Westies) can't cope with the inferiority of their Bogun, Yobbo fashions.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Grey on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 8:05am

Quote:

Not one of the women, in all the worlds history, have ever chosen to be that modest.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by mavisdavis on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:14am

I demand the right to wear a machine gun on each hip. Just look out on day 28!

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:29am

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:35pm:

Quote:

If there was, you could have your passport photo taken with the burqa on.

Taking a photo for identification is not the same situation as being in public. No-one is compelled to have a photo taken for ID purposes unless they get arrested or enter into an arrangement that requires it.

JUST 'SPREAD EM' A LITTLE WIDER PLEASE - the request, from our moslem brothers

Our craven, and morally sick, community is pandering to a foreign and intolerant philosophy.
Why?
Because moslems have convinced many of us, that if we will 'accommodate' moslem 'cultural' requirements, then all will be well between the moslem community, and non-moslems.
That is a moslem lie, a falsehood.

What moslems, at first request, but as our acquiescence to moslem 'needs' is 'satisfied', what moslems will then insist upon, is that the non-moslem host community must become de facto Sharia community - so as to assure 'social harmony' between moslems, and non-moslems.

We [the people of 'Western' nations of this age] do not deserve the freedom and liberties, which OUR FOREFATHERS secured,.

Freedom and liberties which are both unappreciated, and unearned by this craven and wicked generation.

Moslem woman 'proudly' displays her Florida USA D/L photo ID to accommodate moslem 'sensibilities'
http://www.corbisimages.com/images/42-19448491.jpg?size=67&uid=81191590-9c20-436b-9155-ed043889ea6c&uniqID=82ee02f7-2671-41c8-b025-bfabe86157de
http://www.corbisimages.com/images/42-19448491.jpg?size=67&uid=81191590-9c20-436b-9155-ed043889ea6c&uniqID=82ee02f7-2671-41c8-b025-bfabe86157de

New Jersey USA D/L photo ID to accommodate moslem 'sensibilities'

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/7559/1819/220/z/61084/gse_multipart31357.jpg

AND,

http://isaacschrodinger.typepad.com/isaacschrodinger/images/2007/03/24/muslim_woman_id.jpg

Burkas for Australian society ??? - SURE, WHY NOT, THEY'RE JUST BEING 'MODEST'. /sarc off
http://delhi4cats.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/covered-women.jpg?w=468&h=283

Google images;
muslim women face covering driver photo id

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:35pm:

Quote:

So as to prevent 'others' [i.e. complete 'strangers' ] from ascertaining their apparent identity / 'form'.

What are you on about Yadda? Do you suspect them of being aliens or something?

Duh, FD.

Duh, duh, duh.

The whole point FD, is that no-one can tell, who is wearing a burka, or why someone wears a burka.

Are you denying that ISLAM is a violent and militant philosophy?

And on many occasions, moslem militants have used burkas, tactically.

Jihadi men have been known to wear burkas for tactical reasons, concealing their identity, and weapons under burkas.

Devout moslem women have been 'turned' into Jihadi bombers, concealing explosives under their burkas.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/woman-caught-with-bomb-under-burqa.html

Google;
bomb under burka

Google;
weapon under burka

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:35pm:

Quote:

Sorry, BUT FEMALE MODESTY IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE [re burkes].

Yadda, people may cover themselves for whatever reason they want, including modesty. You do not get to choose their motives for them.

FD,

Duh.

See my response, above.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2011 at 8:35pm:

Quote:

Should i [...or anyone else] have the right to go naked in public

The whole point FD, imo, is that if my religion is able to convince me that i have a right to behave in a certain way, must everyone else respect that supposed right ???

Must everyone else [with my broader community] respect, my 'religious freedom/right' to do what others may find offensive ???

If so, why ???

You suggest, it is because i must respect their 'religious freedom/right'

Q.
Shouldn't respect and tolerance be a two way street ???

Not according to moslems, living in non-moslem host nations.

And not according to FD.

Because non-moslem host nations, MUST 'accommodate' all moslem 'cultural' requirements.

Duh.

No we 'must' not.

We too, deserve respect and tolerance, especially from cultural 'guests'.

IMAGE
http://www.theluxechronicles.com/.a/6a00e54f05e1bb88340120a6ab2571970c-700wi
THIS BEHAVIOUR, CHOOSING TO DRESS LIKE THIS, IN PUBLIC, IS APPROPRIATE IN SAUDI ARABIA

But such behaviour, choosing to wear such attire, in public, in Australia, is offensive to Australian cultural mores.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Equitist on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:41am

Many things are offensive to Australian social mores - including Aussie footbrawlers and pollies!

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:02pm

Quote:

Well if you think that women so repressed as to believe that showing their faces in public is a standard that aussies should accept, you are wrong.

That is not even a sentence Mozz.

Quote:

We do not wear masks in public

Yes we do.

Quote:

and despite the ludicrous comparisons with beards and sunglasses

Who made that comparison? I have given plenty of examples of actual masks worn in public.

Quote:

that unassailable fact remains, it is not a part of our culture

But it is Mozz.

Quote:

Not one of the women, in all the worlds history, have ever chosen to be that modest.

Yes they have Grey. That you claim to speak for every woman that has ever existed illustrates the arrogance that is so rife among those calling for a ban.

Quote:

Our craven, and morally sick, community is pandering to a foreign and intolerant philosophy.

Yadda, individual liberty is our own philosophy.

Quote:

The whole point FD, is that no-one can tell, who is wearing a burka

Yes you can Yadda. They are the ones wearing the burka.

Quote:

or why someone wears a burka

Have you tried asking them? It's no big mystery.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:18pm

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

Yadda, individual liberty is our own philosophy.

It is also our philosophy to judge actions by the motivation behind them. Upholding individual liberty is decidedly not the motivation that brings Muslims in burqas to our public spaces - re-primitivising the West is.

Upholding women's individual liberty in the public sphere is anathema to Islam, let alone strands of it that prescribe the burqa.

Your whole individual liberty argument is false when applied to muslim women. It holds water only for women who do have individual liberty, like these two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D00EDBLkZGU

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:26pm

Quote:

It is also our philosophy to judge actions by the motivation behind them.

Judge away. Like I said no-one cares what you think or what dastardly motive you ascribe to these women.

Quote:

Upholding individual liberty is decidedly not the motivation that brings Muslims in burqas to our public spaces.

Likewise when I put on a pair of thongs and walk down the street I am not motivated by individual liberty. I am just getting the paper.

Quote:

Upholding women's individual liberty in the public sphere is anathem to Islam, let alone strands of it that prescribe the burqa.

So this is something in common you have with Islam?

Quote:

Your whole individual libert argument is false when applied to muslim women.

Again Soren, you simply have no clue what liberty means.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by darkhall67 on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:33pm

We have rules in civilised countries.

They are called "decency laws".

It is deemed "indecent" for someone to walk down the street stark bollocks naked.

it's deemed "indecent" for someone to walk down the street in a kkk ensemble.

Like wise , it is INDECENT for a woman to be wearing a burkha or niqab.

No ifs . No buts .

No "but i really WANT to wear this thing".

In a civilized secular society those items of clothing are "indecent".

Get over it.

Your religion isnt deemed "indecent" ( well , any religion is indecent in my opinion but that's by the by ) but those particular items of clothing ARTE indecent.

You have many choices of clothing to wear if yopu "choose# to ne a moslem ;

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJzn4k-ynPrRYLuJCWIuzij9wFF-6Zza-hqvHvMq-uQ6B_V0cF
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRJzn4k-ynPrRYLuJCWIuzij9wFF-6Zza-hqvHvMq-uQ6B_V0cF

The burkha and niqab arent one of them.

Get over it.

Show your face.

Your grandchildren will thank you for it.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:37pm

Quote:

We have rules in civilised countries.

They are called "decency laws".

Hate to break it to you darky, but we don't.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 10:10pm

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:26pm:

Quote:

It is also our philosophy to judge actions by the motivation behind them.

Judge away. Like I said no-one cares what you think or what dastardly motive you ascribe to these women.

Well, the French parliament has judged away and banned face covering because of the motivation behind it.
The Swiss banned minarets because of the motivation behind them. Wilders, the Danish People's Party and all the rest of them have various anti-Muslim policies because of what motivates Muslims.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Foolosophy on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 10:41pm

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 10:10pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:26pm:

Quote:

It is also our philosophy to judge actions by the motivation behind them.

Judge away. Like I said no-one cares what you think or what dastardly motive you ascribe to these women.

Soren's Law of Racist Bigotry

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by darkhall67 on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 11:10pm

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:37pm:

Quote:

We have rules in civilised countries.

They are called "decency laws".

Hate to break it to you darky, but we don't.

You are right.

One shouldnt post comments when one is drunk.iWe do have laws against public indecency.

May I posit bfore the learned judge that face covering mandated by a backward , un enlightened culture for the purpose of subjugating , controlling , demeaning and brainwashing a certain part of the population is INDECENT and should fall under the public indecency statute.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Jasignature on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 3:26am

I'm just amazed how people think there are only
Black people, White people, and to a lesser extent, Yellow people.
...not acknowledging the other 5 races that exist.
NOW THATS RACISM due to ignorance, if ever there was.

Last Black man that called me White got gobsmacked. I'm actually Blue (by race) or Light skinned, not White skinned. He probably couldn't tell a Fair skinned or a Pale skinned (although the Namerindians could) either? ::)

Then I helped him up and brushed him off and explained that he was almost right in calling me a 'White bi-tch' as although I'm racially Blue, I'm quite gifted by the Brown act of Writing and Fashion (spirituality), here in a White region of the World by which I attire myself accordingly to the White style.
He said I should stop messing with his head, so I punched him in the solar plexus instead.
I then helped him catch his breath by waiting a few minutes then said.
"You really should stop thinking as if you were in that 'Red' part of the World".
He brought me a drink after that and we sat and gargled together for a good hour about Life, the Universe and Everything.
He left feeling somewhat ... :)

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 9:25am

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

Quote:

Our craven, and morally sick, community is pandering to a foreign and intolerant philosophy.

Yadda, individual liberty is our own philosophy.

Applying such logic FD,

Then we should open all of the prisons, and let all the criminals out.

Because surely, [in being apprehended for their criminal activity] those criminals were merely expressing their own 'individual liberty', to act in the way in which they wished to.

Hell, why are fraudsters imprisoned ???

It was only money they took !!!!

And, why are paedophiles imprisoned ???

They have no wish to harm children.

Paedophiles will profusely insist, and will tell you, that they LOVE CHILDREN.

What right do we have to impinge upon their 'individual liberty', to act in the way in which they wished to.
/sarc off

NOW SOME COMMON SENSE ARGUMENTS....

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Karl Popper

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Manni

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

Quote:

The whole point FD, is that no-one can tell, who is wearing a burka

Yes you can Yadda. They are the ones wearing the burka.

Yes FD.

Duh!

They are the ones wearing the burka, ......so as to conceal their apparent identity.

Duh! Duh! Duh!

Yadda said....

Quote:

The whole point FD, is that no-one can tell, who is wearing a burka

SCENARIO, SCENARIO, SCENARIO, SCENARIO, SCENARIO.....

IMAGE...
http://barenakedislam.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/afghan_election_gi_gal-vi.jpg?w=460&h=300
'My daughter Fatimas' University graduation photo.
Doesn't she look beautiful!!!
I'm so proud of her.'

OR, ....is it Fatimas' uncle Fred under that burka ???

i.e.
Did Fatima sit the qualifying University examination,
OR, OR, OR,
...did Fatimas' uncle Fred sit sit the qualifying University examination ???

Who can know ???

Sure, Fatima knows who sat her qualifying University examination.

BUT, BUT, BUT, nobody else can be sure who sat the qualifying University examination.

And i will say it again, and again, and again....

CHOOSING TO DRESS LIKE THIS, CHOOSING TO WEAR A BURKA, SO AS TO CONCEAL YOUR APPARENT IDENTITY IN PUBLIC, IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN OUR CULTURE, i.e. IN AUSTRALIA.

Dictionary;
apparent = =
1 readily perceived or understood; obvious.
2 seeming real or true.ifreediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:

Quote:

or why someone wears a burka

Have you tried asking them? It's no big mystery.

My response FD, ....AGAIN;

IMAGE
http://www.theluxechronicles.com/.a/6a00e54f05e1bb88340120a6ab2571970c-700wi
THIS BEHAVIOUR, CHOOSING TO DRESS LIKE THIS, IN PUBLIC, IS APPROPRIATE IN SAUDI ARABIA

But such behaviour, choosing to wear such attire, in public, in Australia, is offensive to Australian cultural mores.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Jasignature on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 9:54am

Like I said,

I think it is ok to attire in the Burqa
(as it is very practical in desert regions where sand-storms and sunlight are intense, as it subdues moisture loss, etc)

but,

any wearer of the Burqa must respect all other areas outside a Mosque, their home and REVEAL their identity upon request and respect for 'everyone' else in the Global Society.
Not just because Anglo-Saxon Political Australians want them to, because they can't stop lying and keeping secrets via their Politicians and CIA.

;)

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 7:19pm

Quote:

Do they care what you think? Mate, this Australia. We don't get wound up about what everyone else wears. If you don't like our culture, you know what to do.

Quote:

May I posit bfore the learned judge that face covering mandated by a backward , un enlightened culture for the purpose of subjugating , controlling , demeaning and brainwashing a certain part of the population is INDECENT

You can posit it whereever you like. It does not make it indecent.

Quote:

Applying such logic FD,

Then we should open all of the prisons, and let all the criminals out.

No we shouldn't Yadda. How would that protect my liberty? The difference is the criminal are an actual threat and do actual harm. The harm of a piece of cloth is all in your head.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by mavisdavis on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 7:33pm

Who posted the clip with the monkey in the bath?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by muso on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 7:34pm

Let's compromise:

Anglo- Australians pictured with muslims in their new culturally sensitive burqas.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by mozzaok on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 7:36pm

Have you ever considered going Ninja yourself FD?
Maybe as a bit of a social experiment to see how it makes you feel to be anonymous in public, and to see how your masked appearance effects your dealings with others, and whether or not they seem to feel comfortable dealing with someone in a mask.
It may be an interesting experience.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 8:54pm

I've been thinking, if they ever try this crap in Australia, I will organise a protest where everyone wear's burqa's. Just burqas.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 10:52pm

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 7:19pm:

Quote:

Do they care what you think? Mate, this Australia. We don't get wound up about what everyone else wears. If you don't like our culture, you know what to do.

Ooh, very militant.

FD, it is unbecoming of a grown man to insist that he has the right - and so does his wife - to wear whatever they wants to, regardless of what people around them think. It is just an argumnent for losers.

I bet anything that you would not dare put this conviction to the practical test and walk into a mosque in your dirty boots after you have cleaned out the pig pen and that you wouldn't dare insist that noboy can tell you what to wear and carry on about there being no black letter law against boots covered in pig sh!t.

You wouldn't encourage your good lady wife/daughter to ignore the customs of the countries you are visiting.

You wouldn't dare walk through the Gaza Strip with a discreet yarmulke on your pate. You would miraculously recognise, without anyone needing to explain to you over a dozen forum posts, that you dress in a way that is accpeptable to the people around you, down to the last little discreet pate-covering. You wouldn't insist, as they cut your throat, that it was just your personal freedom of choice and had nothing to do with Jewish symbolism and anyway, lots of jews don't wear a yarmulke.

You are just gasbagging on a forum here, without any actual lived or liveable experince or practical substance behind your bluster.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Jasignature on Apr 22^nd, 2011 at 6:22pm

Religious cloth is good.
But only in Religious places.

I still think Musicians are the worst dressed people.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 11:51am

Quote:

FD, it is unbecoming of a grown man to insist that he has the right - and so does his wife - to wear whatever they wants to, regardless of what people around them think. It is just an argumnent for losers.

But we do Soren. Defending our liberty is not a bad thing Soren.

Quote:

I bet anything that you would not dare put this conviction to the practical test and walk into a mosque in your dirty boots after you have cleaned out the pig pen and that you wouldn't dare insist that noboy can tell you what to wear and carry on about there being no black letter law against boots covered in pig sh!t.

I see a Mosque as a private place. They can set whatever entry criteria they want.

Quote:

You wouldn't encourage your good lady wife/daughter to ignore the customs of the countries you are visiting.

No I wouldn't, but you are missing the point Soren.

Quote:

You wouldn't dare walk through the Gaza Strip with a discreet yarmulke on your pate.

And this is your justification for your position? Calling me a loser and citing a war zone as an example we should follow for the limits of personal freedom?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by mavisdavis on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 2:13pm

Australia is a relatively free country, and as a concerned citizen, I demand the right to go in public, free from the intimidating prospect of being confronted with people creeping around with their faces hidden. Freedom can only be maintained by the use of common decency, and consideration for others. This face masking business is the height of arrogance, typical of the agressively anti social attitude of muslims.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 2:19pm

No Mavis. You seem a bit confused about what freedom is. Freedom can only be maintained by defending people's right to choose, even if you disagree with their choice. Anything else is hypocrisy, if you try to pretend you are also defending freedom.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 10:21pm

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 11:51am:

Quote:

You wouldn't encourage your good lady wife/daughter to ignore the customs of the countries you are visiting.

No I wouldn't, but you are missing the point Soren.

[quote]You wouldn't dare walk through the Gaza Strip with a discreet yarmulke on your pate.

And this is your justification for your position? Calling me a loser and citing a war zone as an example we should follow for the limits of personal freedom?[/quote]

My point is - read it slowly if that helps - is that you (you personally, FD) do actually recognise without the need of any posts and explanation that the society and people around you DO matter when you chose how you conduct yourself in public.

It is an indication of your stupidity - and I think bad faith - that you need an extereme example like a yarmulke in Gaza to make you see that liberty to be honoured is not just doing what YOU want, regardless of others around you. Liberty is a relationship to others around you (an idea you scoff, yet cannot refute).

This is a point about 'others around you', FD. Don't get stuck on the war zone. It is about recognising that we always act with a conscious consideration of others around us - unless we are sociopaths, of course.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Foolosophy on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 10:30pm

Soren wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 10:21pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 11:51am:

Quote:

You wouldn't encourage your good lady wife/daughter to ignore the customs of the countries you are visiting.

No I wouldn't, but you are missing the point Soren.

[quote]You wouldn't dare walk through the Gaza Strip with a discreet yarmulke on your pate.

And this is your justification for your position? Calling me a loser and citing a war zone as an example we should follow for the limits of personal freedom?

unless we are sociopaths, of course.

[/quote]

of course

its good that you recognise your spiritual and mental illness Soren

With the right international team of brain surgeons and psycho-nuero-therapy you will be on your feet in no time

Keep your chin up

Yours Sincerely

Foolosophy

PS
Whilst you're recovering in post cranial-surgery ward, I highly recommend some stimulating reading

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 8:35pm

Why am I not surprised that you get your bearings by the Garry Bumbags of this world. Fitting, really, for an enormous arse like you. A Gary Bumbag must speak to your very depths.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 8:54pm

Quote:

My point is - read it slowly if that helps - is that you (you personally, FD) do actually recognise without the need of any posts and explanation that the society and people around you DO matter when you chose how you conduct yourself in public.

It is an indication of your stupidity - and I think bad faith - that you need an extereme example like a yarmulke in Gaza to make you see that liberty to be honoured is not just doing what YOU want, regardless of others around you. Liberty is a relationship to others around you (an idea you scoff, yet cannot refute).

Soren, liberty is a 'live and let live' relationship, not an 'I demand you let me see your face' relationship. You want to force others to expose their face to you. Values like individual liberty demand that you refrain from doing so and mind your own business.

Quote:

This is a point about 'others around you', FD. Don't get stuck on the war zone. It is about recognising that we always act with a conscious consideration of others around us

You obviously do not, as you have yourself proposed that we should abandon all politeness and dignitiy when faced with a woman hiding her face from you. You do not consider others around you at all. Instead you arrogantly insist they change the way they act to make you feel more comfortable, then pretend everyone else in Australia shares your values, whatever they are. You talk about consideration for others, but in practice it is only consideration for you and people who want the same as you. It is like you just stepped off a boat from Copenhagen and think you can tell everyone here what it means to be an Aussie.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Foolosophy on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 8:57pm

Soren wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 8:35pm:

Why am I not surprised that you get your bearings by the Garry Bumbags of this world. Fitting, really, for an enormous arse like you. A Gary Bumbag must speak to your very depths.

Gary must be Anti-American too! :)

Allow me to quote a a few things in the preface from Gary's sublime poltical work:

"The corpocracy is the marriage made in Hell between "our" government and large corporations. There is no real democracy in America today, no self rule, no government for, by, and of the people. Americans are ruled instead by an undemocratic regime, the huge and powerful corpocracy. Its rule is tyrannical and harmful. No sphere of American life is spared, whether it is the personal/social/cultural sphere, the economic sphere, the political sphere; or the environmental sphere. If FDR were to return and witness what is happening to us he might say we are living in a Fascist state."

....Thomas Jefferson said he hoped "America would crush moneyed corporations" that were challenging our democracy. Were he to return he would say "I warned you".

Soren must also think FDR and Thomas Jefferson were anti-American.

Soren traps himself in his own immoral lies and convoluted self deceptions.

It's so easy to do ladies and gentlemen

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 9:41pm

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 8:54pm:

Quote:

Sure, I conduct myself with dignity and respect and leave people alone who do not bother me - including people wearing masks. I do not go demanding they uncover themselves for me. That would be stupid.

[quote]It is an indication of your stupidity - and I think bad faith - that you need an extereme example like a yarmulke in Gaza to make you see that liberty to be honoured is not just doing what YOU want, regardless of others around you. Liberty is a relationship to others around you (an idea you scoff, yet cannot refute).

This is a point about 'others around you', FD. Don't get stuck on the war zone. It is about recognising that we always act with a conscious consideration of others around us

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by mavisdavis on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 9:53pm

The whole face hiding bit is not so much about the right to choose what to wear, it`s a security issue, and a quality of life issue.
How low do you want to go?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 9:55pm

Quote:

Covering your face in public on the basis of

Soren it does not matter why they do it. It does not actually harm you. The harm is all in your head. It is imaginary.

Quote:

Demaning respect for it is an insult. You go ahead and accommodate insolence and insult.

The insult is all in your head too Soren. I prefer to deal with reality. No-one is demanding anything from you, other than that you mind your own business. Is that too much to ask? You on the other hand are placing silly demands on these women that you can only justify with some warped notion of Australian values being imposed on people.

Quote:

The whole face hiding bit is not so much about the right to choose what to wear, it`s a security issue, and a quality of life issue.

I am happy to treat the security aspect the same way all other face coverings are treated. As for quality of life, it is up to the individual to choose what they like.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 10:23pm

Well, I think they are insolent front bottoms. You must support my liberty to say so.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 8:59am

Sure, but I can also point out your hypocrisy in claiming your position is based on some high ground of culture or politeness. I have never tried to prevent you saying these things Soren. I have encouraged you, because the more you say the more you paint yourself into your own little corner of fear and irrationality.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 10:57am

ALas, my liberty counts for very little. If I say to any of these insolent bints what I think of them - that they are rude and insolent bints - they'd haul me before a court on spurious racial and religiou vilification charges.
They have the liberty to cause affront but others are prevented from voicing a proper apprisal of that affront.

As far as I am concerned, they can wear whatever they like if others in turn can say to them what they think about it, without fear of being assaulted or fatwahed.

If we can critically appraise and riducule Islam and all its stupid manifestations (and not just be restricted to the brazen lie that it is a religion of peace), we might be getting somewhere. But at present the criticim is allowed only one way. That is not freedom.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 11:06am

Quote:

So they would be minding their own business doing nothing to you, and out of the blue you would start insulting them because of their clothes, and they would be the rude ones?

Quote:

They have the liberty to cause affront

Yes Soren. That's what liberty is. It means that you can't impose your will on them, no matter how loudly you complain or how upset you make yourself.

Quote:

As far as I am concerned, they can wear whatever they like if others in turn can say to them what they think about it, without fear of being assaulted or fatwahed.

Soren, we can criminalise assault all we want, but that is never going to make it hurt any less when you make an ass of yourself and get thumped. Have you so little pride in yourself as a man that you would harass women and then complain of your own fear of other men sticking up for them?

Quote:

If we can critically appraise and riducule Islam and all its stupid manifestations (and not just be restricted to the brazen lie that it is a religion of peace), we might be getting somewhere. But at present the criticim is allowed only one way. That is not freedom.

Tell us Soren, who uis preventing you from speaking your mind?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Foolosophy on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 11:09am

Soren wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 10:23pm:

Well, I think they are insolent front bottoms. You must support my liberty to say so.

SOREN'S WORLD

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by pansi1951 on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 11:22am

eeeeeew.......I hope that I never have to live in Soren's world of control freaks.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Foolosophy on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 11:30am

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 11:22am:

eeeeeew.......I hope that I never have to live in Soren's world of control freaks.

Soren was seen rolling his own with muso the other day

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 1:12pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 11:06am:

Have you so little pride in yourself as a man that you would harass women and then complain of your own fear of other men sticking up for them?

When Jack Straw dared to state the obvious in 2006 by saying that the burka and the niqab were “visible statements of separation and of difference” before asking politely that women visiting his constituency surgery consider removing them, it provoked angry protests from Islamic associations and the British liberal- Left, always inclined, it seems, to defend the rights of liberty's enemies.

Quote:

[quote]If we can critically appraise and riducule Islam and all its stupid manifestations (and not just be restricted to the brazen lie that it is a religion of peace), we might be getting somewhere. But at present the criticim is allowed only one way. That is not freedom.

Tell us Soren, who uis preventing you from speaking your mind?[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRlRd3ew6E0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPsyzTlYUDE&feature=related

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 1:19pm

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 2:19pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i79tlz4n5Us

"In the west, you gotta have face"

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 1:37pm

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 8:54pm:

I've been thinking, if they ever try this crap in Australia, I will organise a protest where everyone wear's burqa's. Just burqas.

This is like insisting on black Africans' right to sell themselves into slavery in AUstralia, to be branded and then to go about in leg irons and a chain around their necks. You would be calling on others to also go about in chains and legirons in solidarity with those African who demans their inalienable freedom to sell themselves into slavery.

The burqa is an expression of womens' inferiority to Muslim males. Condoning the burqa is in essence a submission to the world view of bearded, grizzly Muslim men who have a Koran in one hand and their d!cks in the other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7OYRknGgEc&feature=related

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 1:45pm

Quote:

No it isn't Soren. Again you get it all backwards. Inalienable rights means you can't sell them.

Quote:

Condoning the burqa is in essence a submission to

I am standing up for the right to choose Soren, nothing more. Whatever fantasies of submission you attach to this are yours alone and nothing to do with reality.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 2:47pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Quote:

No it isn't Soren. Again you get it all backwards. Inalienable rights means you can't sell them.

They are sellingh themselves. You insist that they are free to do so. You insist on their inalienable freedom to make themselves unfree.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Grey on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 3:28pm

Soren wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 1:37pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 8:54pm:

I've been thinking, if they ever try this crap in Australia, I will organise a protest where everyone wear's burqa's. Just burqas.

And you Soren, you want to keep a woman like that from entering Australia?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 3:35pm

I am not against anyone who will assimilate.
Evidently she wears the headscraf only because she would be harmed otherwise - remember, she is in Araby.

I am against this and everything it symbolises:

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 6:18pm

Quote:

They are sellingh themselves.

By covering their face? Honestly Soren you go to absurd lengths to associate such a simple act with whatever suits your argument at the time (which of course changes every time someone points out how silly it is).

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 6:26pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 6:18pm:

Quote:

They are sellingh themselves.

Jesus, FD, we were talking about the example of slaves. You said "Inalienable rights means you can't sell them".

To which I replied that the parallel example of the Africans is about selling themselves. The parallel is that the burqa wearers are demanding the freedom of unfreedom and you are supporting them in that.

Sometimes I think you take dyslexia as a form of argument way too far.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 6:59pm

Right. You cannot sell your fundamental human rights. But you can choose to cover your face. Not sure why this is such a sticking point for you Soren.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Grey on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 8:51pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 6:59pm:

Right. You cannot sell your fundamental human rights. But you can choose to cover your face. Not sure why this is such a sticking point for you Soren.

But soren has demonstrated time and again that you cannot choose when you are being coerced to do the thing you claim as a choice. At this rate you'd defend a womens right to be crippled.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3462167744/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 9:25pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 6:59pm:

Right. You cannot sell your fundamental human rights. But you can choose to cover your face. Not sure why this is such a sticking point for you Soren.

I can't think of one false step in this video. It just sums it all up well. Addresses all your points and shows them to be baseless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Foolosophy on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 9:27pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 6:59pm:

Right. You cannot sell your fundamental human rights. But you can choose to cover your face. Not sure why this is such a sticking point for you Soren.

Even this is a sticking point for Soren

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 9:59pm

Quote:

But soren has demonstrated time and again that you cannot choose when you are being coerced to do the thing you claim as a choice.

I can't think of one false step in this video. It just sums it all up well. Addresses all your points and shows them to be baseless.

;D So you can't make a rational argument, but you think a video can? Is this debate too complicated for you?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 1:52am

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2011 at 8:54pm:

I've been thinking, if they ever try this crap in Australia, I will organise a protest where everyone wear's burqa's. Just burqas.

Infection or cancer, cannot take hold and spread in vital, healthy flesh.
We remain healthy while our body remains vital and 'clean'.
We remain healthy while our body has the capacity to clease itself of the toxins produced by the processes that occur within a living organism.
Infection and cancer, take hold in a 'polluted' body ['polluted' usually due to overconsumption].
Infection and cancer will kill the host, when a body no longer has the capacity to clease itself of those toxins produced by the processes that occur within a living organism.

+++

FD,

And i repeat....

The 'logic' you embrace, is that you propose to defend the rights of those, who's only intent is to destroy YOUR rights, and intend to become your oppressor.

It is as though you hold a box of matches in your hands, and declare;
"It is wrong to burn down a house. And that is why i will not burn down this house."

But then, you choose to give your box of matches to a person who wishes to burn down the house.
Illogical.

FD, you are expressing a false virtue.
In that you seem to see nothing wrong with giving moslems the means, to destroy the political 'environment' which facilitates, your own right of 'individual choice'.
When i say 'false virtue', i mean to convey the total lack of 'proper' discernment, in your worldview.

When we choose to 'gift' to moslems, the right of 'individual choice', moslems will begin to express that right of 'individual choice', in a way which they [moslems] will seek to remove that same right of 'individual choice' from others.....as per;
IMAGE...

All good moslems express the view, that the right of 'individual choice' must not include the right to scrutinize, or criticise, or to reject ISLAM

n.b.
That last image DOES display moslems engaging in their right of 'freedom of expression',
...because, TO ALL GOOD MOSLEMS, the right of 'freedom of expression', also DOES embrace the moslem right to promote incitement to murder those who 'insult' ISLAM!

FD, [whether you will admit it, or not] in defending the right of 'individual choice' for moslems, you are implicitly defending a right of moslems, to murder those who reject ISLAM's authority.

FD, you are sick ['polluted'].
The proof that you are sick, is that you are happy to defend, and to host the contagion, that would destroy the body which gives you life.

+++

FD,

Always 'tolerance', and never judgement [of intent],
....is that what liberty and 'rights', 'encapsulates' for you ???

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Karl Popper

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 2:39am

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 6:59pm:

Right. You cannot sell your fundamental human rights. But you can choose to cover your face. Not sure why this is such a sticking point for you Soren.

Of course you can.

Men have often sold their 'fundamental human rights' [and their liberty], for the promise of [continued] life, or the promise of 'peace'.

And that is exactly the bargain which ISLAM offers to all of mankind.

ISLAM is 'peace'.
....the 'peace' of being a slave to ISLAM's evil.

And imo, people such as yourself, FD, would sell your liberty, for a [false] promise.

For a compromise [...with what is evil].

Liberty costs blood, and sometimes to be maintained, it will cost our own blood.

To be true to liberty, is better, than to live as the slaves of evil men.

+++

The appeasement of evil men, does not lead to peace.

IMO, this generation has lost the ability to discern between good and evil, between truth and falsehood.

As individuals, we all know, or as adults, we should know by now!, that if we walk away from truth, we will [always!] reap confusion in our lives.

Peace comes from justice.
Justice comes when *we* respect, and defend, free and open truth.
With justice comes peace.
Justice comes from facing up to, and embracing, TRUTH.

We [who seek peace] are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, is 'overcome', by our surrender to it!

Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.

The appeasement of evil [men], does not lead to peace.

The aggression and violence of evil men, is not overcome, by our surrender, to the designs of those evil men.

That path leads only to slavery, and death.

How is peace achieved, in the real world?

Peace comes through sacrifice, and our willingness to fight for truth, and to fight for what is right[eous].

And, from judgement.

Peace among men comes as a consequence of righteous judgement.

Peace among men comes when wicked men are judged, and when their fellows [other wicked men] come to understand that their wicked actions, will bring judgement upon them.

+++

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
Goethe

None can love freedom so heartily, but good men; the rest have not freedom, but licence.
John Hamilton

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it.The history of Liberty is a history of resistance. The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of Governmental power, NOT the increase of it. Woodrow Wilson

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
George Bernard Shaw

The difference between a free man and a slave is that a slave values his life more than his freedom...
John Norman

Matthew 16:25
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 7:49am

Quote:

The 'logic' you embrace, is that you propose to defend the rights of those, who's only intent is to destroy YOUR rights, and intend to become your oppressor.

Yes Yadda, I will even defend the rights of people like you, while you are calling for the denial of my right to choose what to wear. I will even provide a website for you to sprout your garbage on. That's just how it works. Remember, they are not out to destroy my rights, but everyone's rights, including theirs. I am on the side that is defending rights. The Muslims, and you, are trying to strip those rights away, using each other as an excuse. Both of you must be stopped. I don't care what label you put on your campaign to deny me my rights, it does not change what you are attempting.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 11:04am

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 9:59pm:

Quote:

But soren has demonstrated time and again that you cannot choose when you are being coerced to do the thing you claim as a choice.

Soren has demonstrated no such thing. Why would he bother with such nonsense? We have a choice about whether the government coerces people to dress a certain way. Hence this debate. This is not Afghanistan. We can choose freedom, if we have the balls.

[quote]I can't think of one false step in this video. It just sums it all up well. Addresses all your points and shows them to be baseless.

;D So you can't make a rational argument, but you think a video can? Is this debate too complicated for you?[/quote]

AS you very well know what I meant was that all the arguments againt the burqa are presented succintky (all of them have been raised on the various threads by me and others) as well as all the arguments in its defence you propose are addressed and shown to be wide of the mark.

Dyslexia is not an argument, FD, don't cultivate it as if it was.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by LifeMasque on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 11:12am

Hey Yadda, is that the John Norman who wrote the Gor books? I read those as an adolescent (soon outgrew them). He sure did like the idea of (female) slavery.

d.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 11:42am

Quote:

AS you very well know what I meant was that all the arguments againt the burqa are presented succintky (all of them have been raised on the various threads by me and others) as well as all the arguments in its defence you propose are addressed and shown to be wide of the mark.

I have no idea what you meant. All I know is that despite watching the video, you are still incapable of making a rational argument.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by thelastnail on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 12:28pm

Soren wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 1:12pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 11:06am:

Have you so little pride in yourself as a man that you would harass women and then complain of your own fear of other men sticking up for them?

Tell us Soren, who uis preventing you from speaking your mind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRlRd3ew6E0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPsyzTlYUDE&feature=related

[/quote]

Why do we keeping bring this sh.t here ??

Is this part of the skills migration ?

What possible job prospects other than a life of crime could these imbeciles ever have ??

One day it will be a poli or a member of their family who gets the sh.t kicked out of them by some black idiot. Yes and he can always use the lame excuse that he has had such a hard life so the judge will let him off. Poor black idiots. You've got to feel sorry for them :(

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by thelastnail on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 12:44pm

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

Quote:

I have no idea what you meant. All I know is that despite watching the video, you are still incapable of making a rational argument.

He means why should exceptions be made for impractical clothing attire based on some irrational belief in some imaginary God or interpretation of that God ??

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 2:38pm

It is not an exception. There is no law saying that clothing worn in public must be practical or that your choice may only be based on a limited set of mental prcesses. The exception is for you lot who want to put aside a basic freedom of choice because you get yourselves all wound up over the issue.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 10:34pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 11:06am:

[quote]
Tell us Soren, who uis preventing you from speaking your mind?

A Jordanian court has begun blasphemy proceedings against Danish artist Kurt Westergaard for a controversial cartoon he drew of the Prophet Mohammed.

“A court in Amman began today the trial in absentia of those who insulted the Prophet, including Westergaard and Danish newspapers which published his offensive cartoon,” said Tareq Hawamdeh, lawyer for local journalists and activists who brought the suit. The proceeding started on April 25.

A Jordanian prosecutor summoned Mr. Westergaard for questioning that year after 30 independent newspapers, Websites and radio stations in Jordan sued him over the cartoon, which was published in at least 17 Danish dailies, sparking violent protests in a number of Muslim countries, including Jordan.

“These judicial steps should serve to prevent future attempts to insult Islam and stir up racial hatred towards Muslims across the world, particularly in Europe,” said Zakarya Sheikh, a spokesperson for the group of local media who is suing Mr. Westergaard.

Mr. Sheikh, who is the editor of an Islamic weekly newspaper in Jordan, sued Mr. Westergaard in 2008, saying: “I will do everything in my power to bring him to trial. He deserves the harshest punishment available within the law.”
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/04/26/146762.html

Will they convict him? Of course. Will he go to prison. No. Will others think twice about "speaking their minds"? Of course.
Do you not realise what the point of all these various court cases and trials about 'blaspheming Islam' are about?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 11:13pm

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 2:38pm:

The exception is for you lot who want to put aside a basic freedom of choice because you get yourselves all wound up over the issue.

Muslim Council: women cannot debate wearing veil
The body which claims to be the voice of Britain's Muslims has told women that wearing the veil is "not open to debate".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8455955/Muslim-Council-women-cannot-debate-wearing-veil.html

You are defending the Islamic right of these bearded pr!cks to dictate to your fellow citizens because they are Muslims.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 9:06am

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 7:49am:

Quote:

The 'logic' you embrace, is that you propose to defend the rights of those, who's only intent is to destroy YOUR rights, and intend to become your oppressor.

Yes Yadda, I will even defend the rights of people like you, while you are calling for the denial of my right to choose what to wear. I will even provide a website for you to sprout your garbage on. That's just how it works. Remember, they are not out to destroy my rights, but everyone's rights, including theirs. I am on the side that is defending rights. The Muslims, and you, are trying to strip those rights away, using each other as an excuse. Both of you must be stopped. I don't care what label you put on your campaign to deny me my rights, it does not change what you are attempting.

FD,

Ouch!

I sincerely thank you for your tolerance, in that.

And i acknowledge that, in my experience, OzPol is a very rare online forum.

And i acknowledge that OzPol is truly, a liberal online forum, in the true sense of that word, 'liberal'.

Dictionary;
liberal = = respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas. Ø (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. Ø Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

+++

Isaiah 32:1
Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.
2 And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.
3 And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken.
4 The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.
5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
6 For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
7 The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
8 But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 6:12pm

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2011 at 10:34pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 11:06am:

Quote:

Tell us Soren, who uis preventing you from speaking your mind?

Soren, this the comment that raised the question:

[quote]If we can critically appraise and riducule Islam and all its stupid manifestations (and not just be restricted to the brazen lie that it is a religion of peace), we might be getting somewhere. But at present the criticim is allowed only one way. That is not freedom.

I agree that the examples you gave are limiting free speech, but none of them were in Australia, and none of them would be resolved by denying ourselves the right to choose what to wear. They all seem to have fairly obvious appropriate responses.

Quote:

You are defending the Islamic right of these bearded pr!cks to dictate to your fellow citizens because they are Muslims.

No I am not Soren. You seem especially confused about this issue. If I oppose attempts by anti-Islamists to take away our freedom of choice, that does not mean I support attempts by Islamists to take away our freedom of choice. I am not sure why this is so difficult to communicate. I have said it plenty of times. Perhaps you are creating a false dichotomy in your mind, where our freedom will be denied regardless and we can only choose the Islamic version or the anti-Islamic version. We do not need to do this. I choose neither. I choose freedom. It's that simple.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 9:26pm

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 6:12pm:

I agree that the examples you gave are limiting free speech, but none of them were in Australia.

Are you seriously suggesting that the murder of Rushdie's Japanese translator, the burning down of Danish and Norwegian Embassies because of ome cartoons, the seemingly endless London processions demanding the beheading of those who insult Islam have no effect whatsoever in Australia just because they did not actually take place in Australia??

No you can't be. Well, WTF are you suggesting then?

I said that I don't care what they wear as long as it can be subjected to the proper ridicule. Pat condell put it rather well: in a healthy society this kind of garb would have been ridiculed out of existence a long time ago and would not be respected any more than flares or ponchos. But criticism of anything Ilsamic is curtailed, most significantly by self-sensorship. Why?

Reading the Koran to the amusement of a Pentecostal congregation can get you convicted in Victoria of a hate crime or racial somethingorother. Police officers topping a niqabi risk being accused of racial discrimination.

Criticising or ridiculing Islam is immediatelly labelled racist or invites the death penalty in the form of a fatwah or just sparks exemplary, intimidatory violence.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 9:37pm

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 6:12pm:

Well, Islam is, like, totally so not interested in freedom of choice, as the kids like to say nowadays. You are labouring under a great big naive misunderstanding. Your standards of freedom have been undermined and reduced already in your own country by Islam - see my previous post. And they will continue to be undermined and reduced with every concession you give in the name of freedom.

You are a bit like the Chinese who gave away the powder in their fireworks because they could not possible imagine any other use for it but as a source of amusement. When it came back as gunpowder, it was too late.

Likewise, you give them freedom of choice because you can't imagine what else they may use it for but to dress up funny, like you would - but what freedom you give away to Islam will continue to come back as unfreedom.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 9:38pm

Quote:

No. In fact, if you read the passage you quoted and responded, you would see that I started it by agreeing with you.

Quote:

Well, WTF are you suggesting then?

If you read the bit you didn't quote, you would see what I was suggesting. I will repost it for you:

none of them would be resolved by denying ourselves the right to choose what to wear

Quote:

How does defending the freedom to choose what to wear undermine my freedoms?

Quote:

You are a bit like the Chinese who gave away the powder in their fireworks because they could not possible imagine any other use for it but as a source of amusement. When it came back as gunpowder, it was too late.

OK then, enlighten me. What have i failed to forsee in defending my right to choose what to wear? Or are you sugggesting that you don't know either what could go wrong and we should give up our freedoms 'just in case'?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 9:45pm

WHat about the pertinent issue of let them wear what they like and let others say about it and do about it what they like, ie refuse service or entry to or engagement with the wearers.

Otherwise it is a case of one way freedom of choice and that's no freedom.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 9:50pm

Quote:

WHat about the pertinent issue of let them wear what they like and let others say about it and do about it what they like, ie refuse service or entry to or engagement with the wearers.

That is an interesting suggestion. I believe we already have those rights, within limitations. You cannot for example go and harass or beat up a woman because you don't like her clothes.

Are you suggesting we change the existing laws, and if so, in a general sense, or only with respect to Islamic clothing?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 10:14pm

Of course we should change exiting laws. Some generally - no face covering in offices, schools, shops, airports, public transport etc regardless of whether it is a helmet, a niqab, a medieval visor or a koala suit except if agreed to by the owner of the premises.
Vilification laws should also be amended to make truth a defence and remove 'being offended' as a basis of legal action (the grow a thicker skin amendment). Atempts to legislate for civility are counterproductive. Legsilating to protect any religion from criticism is legislating unfreedom. Vilification of religion should be removed from the books in any guise. If you think Islam/Judaism/Hinduism/Christianity etc are evil creeds, you should be free to say so, unharassed. If you think the niqab or the hashidic garb are the stupidest things you've ever seen, go ahead, feel free to say so.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Foolosophy on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 10:25pm

OH NO IT'S SERIOUS SOREN

he's a handsome chap isn't he ladies and gentlemen

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 7:21pm

Quote:

except if agreed to by the owner of the premises

A lot of the premises you mentioned are not private.

Quote:

Atempts to legislate for civility are counterproductive.

Weren't you recently arguing in favour of legislating civility?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by thelastnail on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 11:45pm

Hey freediver,

Do you think that it is appropriate that someone wears a Ronald McDonald outfit in a bank or airport and which completely obscures their face just because their religious belief in their imaginary God stipulates that they do so ??

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Grey on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 2:35am

delete

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Grey on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 2:38am

And the walls came tumbling down.

http://pixhost.info/pictures/1776956

The sexy brunette remained defiant, saying that she bared it all as a reaction to the "slavery" of her youth.

"What I want to say with these photos is, 'Girls, we don't have to live according to the rules imposed upon us,'" Sahin told Playboy.

"For years I subordinated myself to various societal constraints. The Playboy photo shoot was a total act of liberation."

The Berlin-based star's parents are said to be horrified at the pictorial, and Sahin told Germany's Bild newspaper that her mother has cut off contact.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/04/28/2011-04-28_germanmuslim_soap_star_sila_sahin_causes_uproar_for_steamy_playboy_pictorial_.html

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 7:06pm

Quote:

Bank - no. This is a privately owned place where the need for security is justifiable. That is, the bank has a right to demand people remove face coverings. If the bank is OK with it, then fine by me. No doubt some banks would cater to Muslims by allowing it.

For the airports - yes, but the official security people should be able to make them remove it for identification purposes.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 8:29pm

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 7:21pm:

Quote:

except if agreed to by the owner of the premises

A lot of the premises you mentioned are not private.

[quote]Atempts to legislate for civility are counterproductive.

Weren't you recently arguing in favour of legislating civility?[/quote]

Public offices, transport etc - no face covering. This is a secular country, no special consideration for religious identity defacement. Private premises - owner's dicretion.

Re civility - I argued against the toleration of burqa/niqab and pointed out that it is a sign of deliberate incivility to wear one, especially in a country like France, where being a citoyenne means something quite different from our understanding, which is still essentially that of a subject of the crown.
In any case, my view is to legislate for the complete freedom to ridicule Islamic custom and religion and to punish anyone most severly if they resort to violence or intimidation in response. After all, Christians coped with piss christ without killing anyone or burning anything down. Muslims should be able to either cope with a couple of barbed cartoons and public ridicule of their backward doctrines and deportment or bugger off as people who will never belong here.

We have absolutely no multicultural sensitivities about Germans when we analyse and critique German National Socialism. I don't see why Muslims would deserve a different treatment. They doctrines stink just as much as nazism and they should have no doubt about it. They must not be allowed to hide behind the completely incidental fact that most of them happen to have tinted skins.

I would actually jail any Muslim who utters the word 'racism' in response to any criticism of Islam. That is inciting discord on completely spurious grounds. 12 months latrine duty, minimum.i

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 8:39pm

Quote:

This is a secular country, no special consideration for religious identity defacement.

It is not 'special treatment' to be free.

Quote:

In any case, my view is to legislate for the complete freedom to ridicule

Because it is so difficult to legisltate civility?

Quote:

and to punish anyone most severly if they resort to violence or intimidation in response

When does your 'ridicule' become intimidation?

Quote:

I would actually jail any Muslim who utters the word 'racism' in response to any criticism of Islam.

So people should be free to criticism Islam any way they want, but if Muslims say something you consider politically incorrect in response, they should go to jail?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by mavisdavis on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 8:48pm

Excuse me Freediver, Do you argee with the "right" to go masked in public, of that other most similar organisation, the KKK?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 8:50pm

Rights belong to individuals, not organisations.

But yes, we have the right to wear KKK outfits in public. I even did so myself as a kid.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 10:04pm

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 8:39pm:

When does your 'ridicule' become intimidation?

Gawd, don't be so stupid! Now you can't tell the difference between ridicule and threats???

You want to uphold freedom but you don't even know where it ends and intimidation begins? Being a jack-in-the-box who pops up with some new angle as his stream of consciousness dicates is NOT a cohesive argument, FD.

Where do YOU think the border is between ridicule and intimidation?? Are they actually neighbours? Is there anything else in the neighbourhood? Self-sensorship, perhaps? Behead all who insult Islam? Show us yer tits, love? What?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 10:21pm

Quote:

Gawd, don't be so stupid! Now you can't tell the difference between ridicule and threats???

You said intimidation.

Quote:

Where do YOU think the border is between ridicule and intimidation??

I just asked you that.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 10:45pm

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

Quote:

Gawd, don't be so stupid! Now you can't tell the difference between ridicule and threats???

You said intimidation.

[quote]Where do YOU think the border is between ridicule and intimidation??

I just asked you that.[/quote]

FD, you are a ridiculous prick and you take great pleasure in coming up with stupid things and we are all laughing at you, falling all over the place, slapping our thighs not quite believing that you are not laughing yourself = ridicule.

Fd, you are a ridiculous prick and someone will cut somebody's thtroat, not excludig yours, unless you desist - threat/intimidation/whatever you think it is.

This would be a good post for you to keep for your descendants to show them just what a pedantic pr!ck they are related to (just joking, FD, ie, ridiculing you)

(I do sincerely appreciate your stance for the whole forum and do salute you. Honest and no crossed fingers behind my back.)

Still, I think you are pulling my leg, pretending to be unable to tell the difference between ridicule and threat.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by thelastnail on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 12:34am

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 7:06pm:

Quote:

But what about a religion other than Islam that stipulates the wearing of a Ronald Macdonald costume that hides the identity of someone ?

and if it's a security risk then why should anyone cater for it ??

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 8:32am

Soren wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 10:45pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

Quote:

Gawd, don't be so stupid! Now you can't tell the difference between ridicule and threats???

You said intimidation.

[quote]Where do YOU think the border is between ridicule and intimidation??

I just asked you that.

FD, you are a ridiculous prick and you take great pleasure in coming up with stupid things and we are all laughing at you, falling all over the place, slapping our thighs not quite believing that you are not laughing yourself = ridicule.

Fd, you are a ridiculous prick and someone will cut somebody's thtroat, not excludig yours, unless you desist - threat/intimidation/whatever you think it is.

This would be a good post for you to keep for your descendants to show them just what a pedantic pr!ck they are related to (just joking, FD, ie, ridiculing you)

(I do sincerely appreciate your stance for the whole forum and do salute you. Honest and no crossed fingers behind my back.)

Still, I think you are pulling my leg, pretending to be unable to tell the difference between ridicule and threat.

[/quote]

Intimidation, not threat. There is a very important difference. A threat can usually be ascertained directly from what is actually said. Intimidation is something far more subtle. Hence my question to you. I am not asking you to get out a dictionary, but to say where you would draw the line, as I expect you would grant yourself far more 'freedom' to harass and intimidate a Muslim woman, under the guise of ridicule, than you would accept in return from someone your own size.

Quote:

But what about a religion other than Islam that stipulates the wearing of a Ronald Macdonald costume that hides the identity of someone ?

I'm not sure why you are being that specific. I would grant them the same rights. I do not think that people should be denied rights because they are being rediculous. That would deny a surprisingly large number of people fundamental rights. This is the true test of whether rights are genuine. If rights where only extended to people and actions you approved of as being sensible and rational, they would not be rights.

BTW, my understanding is that the Ronald costume involves a lot of makeup, but not an actual mask. It is no different to women who plaster their face with so much crap that you would not recognise them without it.

Or are you perhaps referring to the potential legal issues of trademark infringement?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by thelastnail on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 12:10pm

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 8:32am:

Quote:

But what about a religion other than Islam that stipulates the wearing of a Ronald Macdonald costume that hides the identity of someone ?

So if someone believes in a religion which stipulates that they have to murder people with red hair is that ok for you ?? Should we let them do it just because they believe in it ?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by marty344 on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 12:57pm

Hello, i am new here. I saw this thread and thought i'd throw n my two cents worth.

Firstly, i have to admit when i see women walking down the street wearing a burqa it is somewhat comfonting and offputting. But that doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

If its okay for women to wear next to nothing when they go to the beach, then why is not okay for a women to go the opposite direction and cover themselves up completely.

The whole things has an air of islamaphobia about it. Its as if Australia as a whole has gotten paranoid with people from overseas taking over Australia.

And for the police and others to say that , for goodness sake how many women go around robbing banks and holding up people at gunpoint. that is a very poor argument for banning the burqa.

I just think we're walking on thin ice if the government starts singling out groups of people and telling them what they can and can't wear.

And although there are women who may be forced to wear a burqa due to religious beliefs and thier culture what about those women that actually WANT to wear a burqa and even LIKE wearing a burqa.

I thought Australia was all about giving everyone a fair go, not matter who they are, what they look like, and what they wear.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by bobbythebat1 on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 1:19pm

marty344 wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 12:57pm:

What if you walked around wearing a balaclava?
I am sure someone would call the police especially if you walked into a bank.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 1:41pm

Quote:

So if someone believes in a religion which stipulates that they have to murder people with red hair is that ok for you ??

No. Why?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Grey on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 3:04pm

Quote:

Marty - The whole things has an air of islamaphobia about it. Its as if Australia as a whole has gotten paranoid with people from overseas taking over Australia.

Some people are like that Marty. Some draw the line at the Burqa. There is Islamophobia, but there is also Islamofascism. Wouldn't you agree?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by bobbythebat1 on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 3:54pm

Grey wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 3:04pm:

Quote:

Marty - The whole things has an air of islamaphobia about it. Its as if Australia as a whole has gotten paranoid with people from overseas taking over Australia.

Some people are like that Marty. Some draw the line at the Burqa. There is Islamophobia, but there is also Islamofascism. Wouldn't you agree?

I have islamophobia -
it started after 9/11.
Should I seek help?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Grey on May 1^st, 2011 at 2:04am

Quote:

I have islamophobia -
it started after 9/11.
Should I seek help?

No because I think you're smart enough to figure out a reasonable position all by yourself BOB. :)

I myself am a theofasciphobic.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on May 1^st, 2011 at 4:46pm

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2011 at 8:50pm:

Rights belong to individuals, not organisations.

But yes, we have the right to wear KKK outfits in public. I even did so myself as a kid.

We mostly assume children to be innocent [...i.e. ignorant, and as yet uninformed].

And mostly, we would be correct.

But with adults, we mostly ascribe motives to their actions.

And mostly, we would be correct.

FD,
Though you may have the legal right to do so, why would you choose NOT to wear a KKK outfit [another assumption] as an adult ???

Does it [choosing, as an adult, not to wear a KKK outfit] have anything to do with the mores of the society to which you belong ???

To wit;
The fact that KKK outfits are associated with people who have motives [i.e. a worldview], which you would not want to be associated with ???

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on May 1^st, 2011 at 6:09pm

Plenty of reasons. I imagine the stains would be hard to get out too.

This is about rights, not what I choose to do with those rights.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by thelastnail on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:50pm

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

Quote:

So if someone believes in a religion which stipulates that they have to murder people with red hair is that ok for you ??

No. Why?

so it's ok to go and murder people just because some preacher or some old book says so and you believe in it ??

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on May 1^st, 2011 at 10:32pm

Sir lastnail wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 7:50pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

Quote:

So if someone believes in a religion which stipulates that they have to murder people with red hair is that ok for you ??

No. Why?

so it's ok to go and murder people just because some preacher or some old book says so and you believe in it ??

No. Why?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:54am

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2011 at 6:09pm:

Plenty of reasons. I imagine the stains would be hard to get out too.

This is about rights, not what I choose to do with those rights.

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 30^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

So if someone believes in a religion which stipulates that they have to murder people with red hair is that ok for you ?? Should we let them do it just because they believe in it ?

FD,

So if a particular group of people ascribe certain 'rights' to themselves, you are OK with that group of people pursuing those rights, because, they are 'rights' ???

i.e. defending 'rights', is virtuous.

FD,

Here is an imperative, a 'right', which ISLAM ascribes to moslems, and which moslems DO 'exercise'...

"...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

A 'right' which moslems do 'exercise', even when moslems live among non-moslems ???

Google;
uk moslem honour killings

FD,

#1, Your OK for moslems to live among us.
#2, Your OK for moslems to, assert themselves as moslems, as moslems are want to do [i.e. it is OK for moslems to 'assume' their 'right' to kill those persons who offend their religion, e.g. by leaving it.]???
#3, Moslems can 'assert' themselves [i.e. be good moslems, while living among us] because moslems have 'rights' ?

I come back to my argument about the wisdom, of assuming, in this PC world, that it is ok for 'sheep' and 'wolves' to share the same 'meadow'.

The opinion of many, is that it is OK.

I disagree.

I say that 'sheep' and 'wolves' need to be separated.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:14am

Quote:

So if a particular group of people ascribe certain 'rights' to themselves, you are OK with that group of people pursuing those rights, because, they are 'rights' ???

No. For example, that is why I did not concede Soren should have the right to rip clothes from a woman's body merely because he ascribed himself the 'right' to see what was under them. I am obviously referring to genuine rights, not whatever someone makes up on the spot.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by mozzaok on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:26am

I have avoided referring to the religious aspect of this debate, and concentrated on the fact that I believe our society is one in which we are not comfortable having people go about their daily lives in masks, and I still believe that, but I should be honest and acknowledge that I also object to the veiling of women because of religious and cultural beliefs also.

I disbelieve the arguments that these women freely choose to make the independent decision to hide themselves completely from society.

I accept that some of them honestly believe that it is their choice, but I also believe they have lost the ability to make a truly independent personal decision because of the religious and cultural restraints that have been imposed upon them.

I believe they have the right to freely display their religious, and cultural beliefs, only up to the point where it has an unwarranted negative impact upon them, the society they live in, or both.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:35am

When does the impact become 'unwarranted'? When people like Soren complain about it?

People make themselves slaves to all sort of things. Like consumerism. It is not for the government to dictate what ideologies or practices people can submit themselves to. They must merely protect people's freedom to change their mind.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:36am

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:14am:

Quote:

So if a particular group of people ascribe certain 'rights' to themselves, you are OK with that group of people pursuing those rights, because, they are 'rights' ???

No. For example, that is why I did not concede Soren should have the right to rip clothes from a woman's body merely because he ascribed himself the 'right' to see what was under them. I am obviously referring to genuine rights, not whatever someone makes up on the spot.

FD,

But moslems DO have a 'lawful' right, to murder those who offend their religion.

This is no 'frivolous', 'made up', right.

Allah gives all moslems that right.

And he is their God.

IMAGE

Moslem 'entitlement' expressed.

FD,

#1, Your OK for moslems to live among us [see image above].
#2, Your OK for moslems to, assert themselves as moslems, as moslems are want to do [i.e. it is OK for moslems to 'assume' their 'right' to kill those persons who offend their religion, e.g. by leaving it.]???
#3, Moslems can 'assert' themselves [i.e. be good moslems, while living among us] because moslems have 'rights' ?

A REALITY, WHICH MANY PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO CONFRONT....

Quote:

Here, for example, are two very illuminating passages from the canonical Life of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq, as translated by A. Guillaume, and a third passage, from the earliest known Muslim historian.

Ishaq: 204 - "'Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?' 'Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'"

Ishaq:231 - "Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders."

And here is Al-Tabari, a very early Muslim historian, in book 9, chapter or section 69, reporting words that Muslims believe to have been said by Mohammed himself - "Killing infidels is a small matter to us".

These texts are not fossils from a distant past. They are not dead letters. They are still 'live' and carry tremendous weight in the imagination and practice of many Muslims around the world.
...DDA

Google it.

n.b.
"Killing infidels is a small matter to us"

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:37am

Quote:

But moslems DO have a 'lawful' right, to murder those who offend their religion.

Where do they have this right?

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by mozzaok on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:59am

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:35am:

I fully agree with you, in principle, that we should allow people as much freedom as possible, to make their own decisions, right, or wrong.
With regard to the impact of the veil, for me it is a sign of male domination over women, which I do not want condoned in any way, it is also a validation for extremists like the Taliban, who will slash, acid burn, and murder, women who challenge their authority to have women always hide themselves, and every western woman who comes forward claiming it is her choice to wear the veil, is assisting the Taliban in their systematic torture and repression of women.
There is also the factor of fear and mistrust, between muslims and western society, and wearing masks in public only helps to reinforce that separation and exacerbate the feelings of fear and mistrust which could have been diminished with something as simple as an open smile.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:08am

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:37am:

Quote:

But moslems DO have a 'lawful' right, to murder those who offend their religion.

Where do they have this right?

FD,

Google;
uk muslim daughter Banaz Mahmod murdered suitcase

FD,
The 'right' of this moslem woman [the victim], to her life [under our law] did not protect her....
....from the right of her father [under ISLAMIC], to kill her.

AND AGAIN, I SAY....

Yadda wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:54am:

I come back to my argument about the wisdom, of assuming, in this PC world, that it is ok for 'sheep' and 'wolves' to share the same 'meadow'.

The opinion of many, is that it is OK.

I disagree.

I say that 'sheep' and 'wolves' need to be separated.

'Wolves' in the 'meadow' are not going to respect the right of 'sheep' to not be accosted or killed, by the 'wolves'.

+++

FD....
"Where do they [moslems] have this right [to kill those who offend their religion]?"

FD,
In response, i pose this question...

In what place [in which country], where there are moslem communities, have moslems not killed their own children [and non-moslems], because moslems were ready to 'assume' that 'right', which ISLAM gave to them ???

Name one nation where moslems reside, where moslems have not murdered others [who came into their power], in the name of ISLAM.

+++

ISLAMIC law *sanctifies* the murder of wives under certain circumstances, e.g. apostasy ['rebellion' against ISLAM's authority].

ISLAMIC law *specifically* gives moslem men, the right to kill their children [and grandchildren].

e.g.
"British girl kidnapped by Saudi father: "I told [the police] he was keeping me there against my will and all they said was, 'He's your father, if he wants he can kill you'."
Indeed, traditional Islamic law does not prescribe retaliation against a parent for killing his or her child. For example: "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2)." "
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/british-girl-kidnapped-by-saudi-father-i-told-the-police-he-was-keeping-me-there-against-my-will-and.html

The murder of moslem women and children often goes *unreported* within moslem families - even in Western nations.

Because such 'events' [within families] are not even crimes within ISLAMIC law.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:13am

mozzaok wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:59am:

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:35am:

So what do you suggest?

Also, how does it help the Taliban? I expect it would undermine them as it shows that even in the west Muslims can do it their way.

Quote:

Google;
uk muslim father daughter found in suitcase

Yadda they do not have the legal right to do that in the UK.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:46am

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:13am:

Quote:

Google;
uk muslim father daughter found in suitcase

Yadda they do not have the legal right to do that in the UK.

FD,

No, not according to our laws.

But the point is, that according to ISLAMIC law, they do have a 'legal' right to murder [those who offend their religion].

But FD, assuming your point of the argument.....
If moslems do NOT have the legal right to murder people [according to our laws], then why are many moslems breaking our laws in that regard,
...AND THEN JUSTIFYING THEIR CONDUCT IN OUR COURTS, BY REFERRING TO ISLAMIC LAW ???

Doesn't this conduct by many moslems demonstrate, that many moslems, will have no respect for our laws, unless someone is watching them ???

And if moslems commonly, show that they have no respect our laws [and the 'rights' which those laws protect], then shouldn't we assume that moslems who live among us, will have no respect, FOR OUR RIGHTS ???

INCITING MOSLEMS TO MURDER NON-MOSLEMS....
....BUT, JUSTIFIED BY ISLAM, AND ISLAM's LAW;

Quote:

25 May 2007
"......Al-Faisal spent years travelling the UK preaching racial hatred urging his audience to kill Jews, Hindus and Westerners.
......But throughout the trial he denied he had intended to incite people to violence.
......he argued his talks came from the Koran and if he was on trial so was the holy text."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6692243.stm

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on May 2^nd, 2011 at 12:49pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:14am:

Quote:

So if a particular group of people ascribe certain 'rights' to themselves, you are OK with that group of people pursuing those rights, because, they are 'rights' ???

Not that I ever claimed a right to rip off their veils. WHat I actually claimed was the right not to deal with them while they are covering their faces. But as Jack Straw's experience showed, that right is not readily recognised.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:41pm

Quote:

But the point is, that according to ISLAMIC law, they do have a 'legal' right to murder [those who offend their religion].

OK. Thanks for finally getting to the point.

Quote:

And if moslems commonly, show that they have no respect our laws [and the 'rights' which those laws protect], then shouldn't we assume that moslems who live among us, will have no respect, FOR OUR RIGHTS ???

Sure. Just like you and Soren have no respect for them either. Like I said you must both be stopped.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on May 2^nd, 2011 at 2:24pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:41pm:

Quote:

Sure. Just like you and Soren have no respect for them either. Like I said you must both be stopped.

Yes FD,

It is so, so, unjust for people like myself, to despise ISLAM.
And so unjust for people like myself, to seek to 'oppress' moslems, by seeking to make moslems accountable for the consequences of their own choices, and for the consequences of their own fascist worldview .
/sarc off

Yadda said...
A moslem, is a person who chooses to embrace a philosophy [ISLAM] which tells moslems that it is 'lawful' for moslems, to kill those who do not believe, as they believe.

"....the death of those who are killed for the cause of God gives more impetus to the cause, which continues to thrive on their blood."
ISLAMIC scholar, Sayyid Qutb

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:31pm

Yadda, it is not that simple. If you actually had the balls to follow through on your logic, you would be far more dangerous than a typical Muslim. The danger always comes from those who can only see things in black and white rather than the reality we are faced with. You are basically an anti-Muslim version of the worst kind of Muslim. Pointing to the insidious threat posed by Islam does not mask the insidious threat of your own ideology. You think that to beat Islam we must become it at it's own game. You are wrong.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:55pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:41pm:

Quote:

But the point is, that according to ISLAMIC law, they do have a 'legal' right to murder [those who offend their religion].

OK. Thanks for finally getting to the point.

[quote]And if moslems commonly, show that they have no respect our laws [and the 'rights' which those laws protect], then shouldn't we assume that moslems who live among us, will have no respect, FOR OUR RIGHTS ???

Sure. Just like you and Soren have no respect for them either. Like I said you must both be stopped.[/quote]

You are talking through your arse again, FD. Not respecting certain Muslim customs and doctrines and advocating law reform directed at them is not a disrespect of existing laws.
Equating a strong non-violent antipathy towards certain islamic customs and doctrines with Muslim terrorism is just stupid and very dishonest on your part. But you are still putting it forward without a blink of an eye. You know that nobody is advocating violence or unlawful behaviour. Opposing deeply anti-freedom doctrines cannot be anti-freedom. Opposing oppression is not pro-oppression, except perhaps in your mind.

A majority of the French Parliament voted for a burqa ban. Other jursidictions with impeccable democratic credentials have also voted for various curtailment of Muslim rights. This is evidently a subject ripe for discussion and as a topic should not be forced underground under the stupid and toxic reflex that anything that curtails Muslim rights is anti-freedom. That stance is untenable for the simple reason that many Muslim doctrines and practices are anti-freedom. Being anti-fascist is not fascistic, or opposing oppression is not oppressive - except perhaps in your mind.i

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:01pm

Quote:

You are talking through your arse again, FD. Not respecting certain Muslim customs and doctrines and advocating law reform directed at them is not a disrespect of existing laws.

Though Yadda tried to make it about the law, that is not what this is really about, nor is it what I was referring to. This is about rights.

Quote:

Equating a strong non-violent antipathy towards certain islamic customs and doctrines with Muslim terrorism is just stupid and very dishonest on your part.

I did not equate them. I said they must both be stopped.

Quote:

Other jursidictions with impeccable democratic credentials

Do you even know what that means? Electing Hitler showed impeccable democratic credentials.

Quote:

and toxic reflex that anything that curtails Muslim rights is anti-freedom

I am not concerned for the rights of a religion, but for my own right to choose what to wear.

Quote:

That stance is untenable for the simple reason that many Muslim doctrines and practices are anti-freedom.

You make no sense Soren. It would be pretty spineless at best to insist we must throw away one set of rights to maintain another.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:17pm

The problem with Hitler wasn't that he was elected - rathr, that he could not be also voted out.

Your rights are curtailed in all sorts of ways. For example, you do not have the right to refuse entry into your shop or office to a niqabi.

You couldn't even put on a face-covering in such a situation at the sight of an approaching niqabi, if she saw you first because you'd be up before an anti discrimination magisrate before you could say 'my right to wear what I want'.

SHe has the right - you don't.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Yadda on May 3^rd, 2011 at 12:21pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:31pm:

Yadda, it is not that simple. If you actually had the balls to follow through on your logic, you would be far more dangerous than a typical Muslim. The danger always comes from those who can only see things in black and white rather than the reality we are faced with. You are basically an anti-Muslim version of the worst kind of Muslim. Pointing to the insidious threat posed by Islam does not mask the insidious threat of your own ideology. You think that to beat Islam we must become it at it's own game. You are wrong.

FD,

If everything that you say about me is true, maybe i should be prosecuted, and thrown into prison.

What would the charge be against me ???

Perhaps, inciting 'social disharmony', and / or, inciting hatred of an 'ethnic' group ???

Yep, that sounds appropriate.

Jeremiah 26

+++

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:31pm:

...The danger always comes from those who can only see things in black and white rather than the reality we are faced with.

FD,

Two images....

And a question.

Which of these two images more nearly represents, 'seeing things in black and white' ???

IMAGE #1 or IMAGE #2 ???

And which image more nearly represents, 'the reality we are faced with' ???

IMAGE #1 or IMAGE #2 ???

Perhaps the message which is conveyed in IMAGE #2 more nearly represents, 'the reality we are faced with' ???

Is that what you honestly believe FD ???

IMAGE #1

IMAGE #2

+++

FD,

Pretend [<--- something you are well experienced in] for a moment, that it is '1938'.

FD,

You, who claim to be the champion of our 'rights', are you an appeaser of fascism ???

Are you a, "...its peace in our time", kind of guy ???

IMAGE....

Or, are you someone who understands that our rights, and truth, need to be defended, sometimes with our blood ???

+++

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:31pm:

Yadda, .....You think that to beat Islam we must become it at it's own game.

No FD.

No, no, no.

I think that to beat ISLAM, we need to tell the truth.

And, not only tell the truth, but also, have the courage to confront the truth.

And that, is my real 'crime'.

p.s.
Who's that at my door ??

Come in, Mr ASIO.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on May 3^rd, 2011 at 4:56pm

Quote:

The problem with Hitler wasn't that he was elected - rathr, that he could not be also voted out.

Not electing him in the first place might have helped. After all, he had already written Mein Kampf.

Quote:

If everything that you say about me is true, maybe i should be prosecuted, and thrown into prison.

I don't think you have crossed that line yet. So far it is all talk, and even there you are holding back.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by Soren on May 3^rd, 2011 at 7:11pm

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2011 at 4:56pm:

Quote:

The problem with Hitler wasn't that he was elected - rathr, that he could not be also voted out.

Not electing him in the first place might have helped. After all, he had already written Mein Kampf.

Suddenly the 'rights' issue has slipped under your radar, FD. Your brilliantly creative and original move of introducing Hitler into the argument must have made you forget all about it. Here's a reminder:

Your rights are curtailed in all sorts of ways. For example, you do not have the right to refuse entry into your shop or office to a niqabi.

You couldn't even put on a face-covering in such a situation at the sight of an approaching niqabi, if she saw you first because you'd be up before an anti discrimination magisrate before you could say 'my right to wear what I want'.

The niqabi has the right - you don't.

Title: Re: the right to choose what to wear
Post by freediver on May 4^th, 2011 at 9:29pm

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.