Australian Politics Forum - the right to choose what to wear

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48864
At my desk.

the right to choose what to wear
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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 18^th, 2011 at 7:18pm by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Grey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5341 Gender:	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #1 - 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.
Back to top	"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #2 - 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?
Back to top	IP Logged

Inner Health Plus Junior Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 56	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #3 - Apr 12^th, 2011 at 11:26pm sorens house
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48864
At my desk.

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #4 - 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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Grey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5341 Gender:	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #5 - 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.
Back to top	"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48864 At my desk.	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #6 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 8:20pm You say pardox, I say hypocrisy.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Grey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5341 Gender:	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #7 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 8:39pm Quote: You say pardox, I say hypocrisy. It's not hpocrisy to fight fire with fire.
Back to top	"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48864 At my desk.	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #8 - 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.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

darkhall67

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1935

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #9 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:42pm

freediver wrote 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.

They ARENT choosing.

They are being brainwashed.

Time for an intervention.

Time for a deprogramming.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48864 At my desk.	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #10 - 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?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #11 - Apr 13^th, 2011 at 9:55pm

freediver wrote 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.

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.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

darkhall67

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1935

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #12 - 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?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48864
At my desk.

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #13 - 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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21698
A cat with a view

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #14 - 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=artic...

+++

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 15^th, 2011 at 8:02am by Yadda »

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged