Australian Politics Forum - the right to choose what to wear

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21699
A cat with a view

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #15 - 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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 15^th, 2011 at 10:54am 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

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #16 - 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.

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: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #17 - 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-migrati...

Back to top

IP Logged

Grey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5341 Gender:	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #18 - Apr 15^th, 2011 at 12:37pm Soren - the UK is simply not comparable to Australia on matters of immigration/population density.
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: 48867
At my desk.

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #19 - 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.

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 #20 - Apr 16^th, 2011 at 12:24am

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

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.

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

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.

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: 48867
At my desk.

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #21 - 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.

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 #22 - 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.

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: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #23 - 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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1171 Australia Gender:	Re: The case against Islamic immigration Reply #24 - 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
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #25 - 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

http://thehumanscorch.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/1243271414_black_guy_laughing....

Stupid drongo.

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #26 - 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

http://thehumanscorch.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/1243271414_black_guy_laughing....

Stupid drongo.

seems like Soren is also a very sensitive soul

very touching

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48867
At my desk.

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #27 - 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?

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: 21699
A cat with a view

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #28 - 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.

Back to top

"....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

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The case against Islamic immigration
Reply #29 - 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-deb...

Back to top

IP Logged