ANU keeps Burka Ban chatter rolling on

ant said :

johnboy said :

sepi said :

quote]

Statements like this are why no-one ever pays any attention to anything you say Sepi. And thank god for that.

Speak for yourself. Sepi often speaks a lot of sense, and refrains from insulting other people while making a point.

As always, people who resort to insults have already lost the argument.

+1

johnboy said :

sepi said :

I prefer tyranny over a smaller number of women by the govt (banning burka) rather than tyranny of a larger number of women at the whim of the men in their lives.

Statements like this are why no-one ever pays any attention to anything you say Sepi. And thank god for that.

Speak for yourself. Sepi often speaks a lot of sense, and refrains from insulting other people while making a point. As always, people who resort to insults have already lost the argument.

@72 Wrong: I am. It just does not fit in with your world view.
And so you chose to ignore it.

Skid, legislation has always been used as a blunt tool to force changes in
moral, racial, religious views. I am sure that the bigots of the 60s have
mellowed in their attitudes. There is no reason to think that banning the
burka (I am not advocating a ban on head dress/wigs etc) will force the
paternalistic MEN to change their view. Yet again, MEN like to hold on to
their power, no matter what religion they lead.

I find the burka offensive as I find the hooded robes worn by the KKK to
be too. Are you suggesting I have a right to wear an KKK outfit and not
be sneered at?

So is this argument about social integration of migrants, oppression of women, religious expression or fashion?

Because people who refuse to learn the language irritate me, oppression of women within the family saddens me, imaginary friends are for kids and fashion comes and goes each year.

sepi said :

I prefer tyranny over a smaller number of women by the govt (banning burka) rather than tyranny of a larger number of women at the whim of the men in their lives.

Well gee, thanks for sharing.

Nothing personal, but you haven’t made a coherent argument about this. I’d suggest responding specifically to Skid’s points if we want this to be anything more than indignant, emotional rambling. Of course there are some women who are ‘oppressed’. And I bet they don’t all wear burqas either.

Because it’s not for tous dictate how any people can or should liberate themselves.

Education and (long-term) exposure to a new culture generally does the trick: I’m willing to bet that there aren’t many (if any) 2nd or 3rd generation migrants from middle-eastern countries who wear the burka.

sepi said :

I prefer tyranny over a smaller number of women by the govt (banning burka) rather than tyranny of a larger number of women at the whim of the men in their lives.

Statements like this are why no-one ever pays any attention to anything you say Sepi. And thank god for that.

It is interesting though.

And so far noone has had any ideas at all about how our society can deal with women who are forced to wear the burka and do only what the men in their lives allow them to do.

For that matter, you don’t think that the people wearing burkas in Australia might already be ‘out of step with the community’ somewhat?

Clothing bans aimed at this minority group is hardly going to bring them into the mainstream. If anything it would lead to further alienation and division.

Regardless, the argument is moot. It’s not going to happen.

sepi said :

Once something becomes law people are forced to recognise it as a mainstream idea, and that by objecting they are out of step with the community.

Sepi, we’re hardly dealing with mainstream community issues here, are we?

I don’t buy that.

Women getting the vote was a decree.

Women being able to say no to sex within marriage was a decree.

Gay sex being legal was a decree.

Once something becomes law people are forced to recognise it as a mainstream idea, and that by objecting they are out of step with the community.

ant said :

It’s not a quaint folk dress that we are objecting to, it’s a symbol of women living in a mediaeval situation, under men.

The burka is obviously one of the symptoms of an oppressive culture – but you can’t cure a disease by treating symptoms, you have to address the root cause. Anything else is clearly pissing about around the edges and will have little pragmatic effect.

The way to address the subjection of women is a little more complex than just banning a piece of clothing. If it were that simple, it would have been achieved years ago.

Really, do you think that muslim women who are oppressed in Australia will magically throw off their chains because some rich white person has decided that burkas should be banned? If anything, the response to such legislation would be even greater division, distrust, suspicion and outright hostility between mainstream Australia and fundamentalist-leaning Muslims. Many moderate muslims would also take it as being yet another paternalistic attack on their faith (whether they agreed with the burka or not) from an inherently hostile western civilization.

Cultural change occurs by degrees – not by decrees.

The cultural cringe is worse than ever it seems.

I prefer tyranny over a smaller number of women by the govt (banning burka) rather than tyranny of a larger number of women at the whim of the men in their lives.

If that position doesn’t make sense to you, then so be it.

As for respecting their culture, well, when we visit their countries, we are forced to respect their culture, by law. You wear whatever covering they dictate, or else. Well, at least, women do. Men aren’t subject to as many restrictions.

Yet when they come into our coutnry, there is no reciprocal respecting of our cultural mores, expectations and sensitivities. As usual, we want to pretend that somehow, we have no culture and their culture, being stronger, must be “respected”.

I think what Sarkozy is saying is, yes there is a culture, and by imposing their culture of downtrodden women who come under the authority of their fathers, husbands and brothers on France, publicly by wearing burqa or hijab, then they are offending the culture of France. I feel the same way about Australia.

It’s not a quaint folk dress that we are objecting to, it’s a symbol of women living in a mediaeval situation, under men.

Tyranny with good intentions is still tyrrany, sepi.

Banning the burka frees women: to get the sun on their face, to make eye contact with their neighbours, to walk faster than a snail.

I do wonder if the issue related to men suffering, whether everyone would be able to remain so theoretical about this issue.

Massai men paint their lips black to impress their women at ceremonies. Unfortunatley in the modern world they choose to do this with battery acid.

If this was happening in Australia and leading to bad health outcomes, would you want seomthing done about it.

Or would it just be ‘their culture’ and none of our business?

sepi said :

So I would sacrifice the wishes of the few who prefer to wear it, in order to free the greater number of women who are now forced to wear it.

Banning the burka frees women.

Could you explain how this happens?

I’ve already said for me it comes down to numbers. I believe the number of women who wish to wear the burka is smaller than the number who are forced to wear it and would prefer not to.

So I would sacrifice the wishes of the few who prefer to wear it, in order to free the greater number of women who are now forced to wear it.

sepi, if i came up to you in the street and said that an item of clothing, or, in fact all of the clothes you were wearing were offensive to me, and i had initiated a ban of your particular individual style of dress, would you be offended? If I was flanked by 2 policewomen, who bundled you into a changing room and made you don something more “appropriate”, to my definition, what rights would you have? How will they enforce the removal of the burka, without infringing on the individual rights of the wearer? who will make the judgement that the clothing worn is unaustralian? where will it end?

Virginia is looking to remove an item of clothing that she has a personal issue with. To claim that women are being subjugated by the male muslims in families in australia, have you ever visited with a muslim family? the father is the last person to say he is the boss. especially in front of the mother… Tradition is an important part of who we are, regardless of our ethnicity. If women choose to wear what they want, then let them.

Sepi, it’s got little do with elements of non-Western culture being ‘beyond reproach’ or not. Or who has the most extensive contact with middle eastern women.

Your line of argument is paternalistic, it’s tantamount to saying: ‘Middle Eastern women don’t know what’s good for them, so I’ll force them by legislation’.

How is being forced into a position by you/Virginia/etc any better than being forced into a position by their culture?

Do you really think that every aspect of every non-Western culture is beyond reproach?

Have you had extensive contact with these middle eastern women, on which to base your opinions?

However, I will admit that I do enjoy watching feminists adopt and defend paternalism.

Better question for you Pandy:
Are you seriously saying that its okay to attack a living religious practice using the force of law?
There are 370,000 self-identified Muslims in Australia at last Census, if somehow you managed to unite and register them as a political party, they would be seven times larger than the Labor Party.

Sepi:
You’re a 21st Century Westernised woman trying to argue, based on your own day-to-day experiences of living in the wake of Western post-feminism/women’s lib, as to what is best for Middle-Eastern women you have had no contact with.
Just because you personally find something offensive at first appearance through your rose-coloured blinkers, doesn’t mean there is no good to it or a cultural context for it.
I wasn’t aware we were being so simplistic as to ‘play to sides’ of Offensive Woman-Haters of the World world vs You.
Do you find other people often get really dismissive when you start adopting that pose?

Better question for you Pandy:
Are you seriously saying that its okay to attack a living religious practice using the force of law?
There are 370,000 self-identified Muslims in Australia at last Census, if somehow you managed to unite and register them as a political party, they would be seven times larger than the Labor Party.

Sepi:
You’re a 21st Century Westernised woman trying to argue, based on your own day-to-day experiences of living in the wake of Western post-feminism/women’s lib, as to what is best for Middle-Eastern women you have had no contact with.
Just because you personally find something offensive at first appearance through your rose-coloured blinkers, doesn’t mean there is no good to it or a cultural context for it.
I wasn’t aware we were being so simplistic as to ‘play to sides’ of Offensive Woman-Haters of the World world vs You.
Do you find other people often get really dismissive when you start adopting that pose?

sepi said :

I am coming down on the side of freedom of choice for women.

Do you really think that banning an item of clothing is doing much for freedom of choice for women?

If anything, it’s just another instance of paternalism: “We know what’s good for you and will force you to do it.” Where’s the ‘freedom of choice’ in that?

ethnocentric militants etc etc??? What a load of bollocks.

I am coming down on the side of freedom of choice for women. I recognise that banning burkas would remove choice for a minute amount of women who apparently choose to wear the burka (I note none has come out anywhere publically to say they are burka wearers and proud).

I prefer a situation where noone is forced into a burka, and a tiny number of women who may wish to wear it out of the house can’t; over a situation where a greater number of women can be forced to cover their faces under a burka. Obviously ther is no neat simple solution to this, so I just go with the numbers.

And as long as your side is using arguments like “back in your box dog” I’ll stick with Virginia.

Pandy said :

Skid, you defening a 10th century religion in the 21st century?

All religions are stupid. What are you going to do, ban religion?

I’m sure that’ll go down well.

Skid, you defening a 10th century religion in the 21st century?

unfamiliar minorities, even.

Ant:
I’m not calling anyone racist, I’m calling you, Sepi, and Virginia ethnocentric militant-agenda feminists who fail to spot their own biases when dealing with foreign minorities.
Try to keep up.

delete “something” in th elast line.

PARIS, France (CNN) — The French National Assembly announced Tuesday the creation of an inquiry into whether women in France should be allowed to wear the burka, one day after President Nicolas Sarkozy controversially told lawmakers that the traditional Muslim garment was “not welcome” in France.

A woman wears traditionnal Muslim dress n Venissieux, near Lyon.

A cross-party panel of 32 lawmakers will investigate whether the traditional Muslim garment poses a threat to the secular nature of the French constitution. They are due to report back with their recommendations in six months.

Last week 57 lawmakers — led by communist legislator Andre Gerin — signed a petition calling for a study into the feasibility of legislation to ban the burka in public places.

On Monday Sarkozy declared in a keynote parliamentary address that the burka, which covers women from head to toe, is “not welcome” in France. Watch why burkas are such a controversial issue in France »

“The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman’s freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France,” Sarkozy told lawmakers.

And you know what? There were a few Muslim in France who came out and supported the ban for the reasons said above, criticising the push by other clerics preaching that you are not Muslim if you don’t wear one. Does anyone see the irony in this?

Now there are reports of Muslims beating Muslims in France for speaking out upon the wearing of the burqa.

So tell me under this sort of intimidation, tell me where is the freedom of choice that the bleeding hearts like to defend?

When Saudi Arabia allows women to wear what they want, drive motor cars and become wage earners rather than baby factories, then maybe your arguments will hold on freedom of choice. Until that happens, I think the men who defend their “rights” have something another agenda.

ant said :

But people have been calling for her to be sacked from the ABC (for writing a newspaper article), and screaming “racist” at people who object to the wearing of the burqa in Australia.

Who? Where?

Is this on the ABC website or something?

I support a ban on smoking by lesbian ducks wearing burqas, unless both ducks are hot.

Tonka said :

I reiterate the point about burka wearing women being few in number.

I don’t care if there’s 10, or thousands. It’s confronting and affronting. It’s not dress, it covers the dress and the wearer. It’s not clothing, it’s mobile purdah.

And yes, Hausegger, and me, and everyone else should be able to express their opinions about this costume. But people have been calling for her to be sacked from the ABC (for writing a newspaper article), and screaming “racist” at people who object to the wearing of the burqa in Australia.

I don’t want the wearing of this repellant thing banned under law, but for those who object to be slapped with insults like “racist” is an interesting development in our “free” society.

Why can’t we state our reasons for objecting to it, or just object, without being attacked and called nasty names? If you call someone a “racist”, does that mean open season for a kick and insults fest?

I’ve just gotten in the door to a barrage from my teenage daughter about this issue. I have been directed to say that whilst Virginia is entitled to her opinion as we live in a free democracy; isn’t it hipocrisy to tell people they aren’t allowed to wear something? She wants to know why Virginia isn’t more interested in banning the Swastika?

To clarify for those in the audience, my daughter attends a school with several muslim girls who all wear a burka and CHOOSE to wear one. Their families don’t force them.

My daughter also wants to know where Virginia gets off speaking for the women of Australia? (her words exactly!!!)She thinks Virginia should get back in her box and stop looking for attention.

And if any of you are wondering why she isn’t posting this herself? She isn’t allowed to …yet.

yeah because clearly respect for women is high on everyone’s agenda. Non-issue. Back to sleep everyone.

Virginia Hausegger makes a deperate grab for relevenace. I’ve met dog turds with more insight than this washed up hack.

She’d be relevant if she was also demanding that other offensive displays of faith were also banned like the wearing of yamulka’s or crucifix jewelery.

Back in your box dog.

comparisons with rome are irrelevant anyway.

‘nuns can’t be pope so muslem men can oppress their wives’ makes no sense to me.

Sepi, judging the multi-sect and branches Islam by the standards of central-authoritarian mainstream Roman Catholic doctrine and referencing a single event that is still a source of schism amongst some believers (Sedevacantism for example) is totally inaccurate way of comparing cultures.

PS: Vatican II was in the Sixties.
The Tenth Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church was back in the 12th Century and among other things, prevented priests from dressing too strangely, affirmed the Papacy of Latverian against an antipope, prevented low-level churchmen from accepting bribes, and passed a regulation about use of arms(crossbows) on believers.

I reiterate the point about burka wearing women being few in number.

The point about the habit wasn’t just about the garment, it was about the oppression of women in the church along gender lines.

While women in the vatican don’t have to wear the habit any more, they’re still limited in their role by gender. How many female popes, priests cardinals have the Catholic Church had? I’d point the finger at other religious institutions as well.

I’m merely trying to point out an underlying hypocrisy at work here. I don’t really care about this non-issue anyway, but while everyone is pointing the finger, let’s ensure that it’s pointed at all people who oppress women on religious grounds, rather than just picking a soft and easy target. The garment is secondary to the oppression in my view.

sepi said :

Nuns haven’t had to wear the full habit since Vatican 10 – in the sixties. And even then they had their faces on view.

Was just about to say the same thing Sepi

Hugh Lews said :

bellaa said: “I think a lot of Muslim women choose to wear the burqa”

LMFAO. 3 words that don’t go in the same sentence.

1. Muslim
2. Women
3. Choose

How ignorant.
Let me guess… you have never met a muslim woman.

oops, mea culpa noaddedmsg. you’re entirely correct, as ever.

still, a muslim marriage ad on a thread more or less discussing oppression of women by their husbands…

Nuns haven’t had to wear the full habit since Vatican 10 – in the sixties. And even then they had their faces on view.

NoAddedMSG said :

Assuming you are seeing the same advert as me, it’s a hijab not a burka, a rather important distinction in the context of this debate.

For those of you who seem to be advocating legally interfering with people’s ability to dress without knowing what specific item you’re talking about, have a field guide.
http://jadmadi.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/hijab1.jpg

Just to blur things slightly, the word burqa sometimes also refers to the here referenced niqab (some kind of regional variation), and niqab sometimes may refer to showing cheekbones (or not, again subject to regional variation).
Not being realy well versed in Modern Islam or Modern Arabic, I will have to leave the definitions up to others.
But your laws had better be able to differentiate between them.
Will you ban the burqa, the niqab, or just ban all forms of islamic modesty dress so then you can judge them on the size of their bum\breasts too?

I agree that Virginia is just beating a minority-exclusion drum so people pay attention to her. She is a media personality, afterall. If we stop paying attention, she loses her power, and just fades into the vacuuous nothingness she really is.
(Just don’t look, just don’t look…)

You’ll probably find that there will be more people at this ‘debate’ than there are actually Muslim women wearing the burka in Australia.

Given that Muslims constitute a tiny proportion of our overall population (maybe 1.7%), and that burka wearing women would be a tiny, tiny proportion of that population, there probably wouldn’t be very many at all.

I’m all for gender equality, but it strikes me that this debate isn’t about that. It seems to me that this is more about Virginia picking a soft target to raise her public profile.

I am interested to know… will she also be addressing the issue of nun’s habits (which clearly place and define women in an inferior gender role in the heirachy in the catholic church), or the headwear which women from many other faiths (such as Orthodox christians or Sikh) wear every day? I see far more people of other faiths in religious headgear than I do Muslim women.

Instead of rabbiting on about this non-issue in Australia, I would suggest that Virginia devote her time to helping women who are perhaps poor, or uneducated, or spending her time proactively helping those in need rather than instead trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I’m all for Virginia helping women, but this is really a non-issue in Australia. It smacks of her riding on the back of a few cheap comments from Sarkozy which have absolutely no relevance to the Australian context.

Overall, this gets four yawns on a five yawn scale.

astrojax said :

i love that the banner ad beside this thread is for ‘muslima’, a muslim matrimonial site, featuring a burqa-clad lass… : )

Assuming you are seeing the same advert as me, it’s a hijab not a burka, a rather important distinction in the context of this debate.

I want anyone who objects to it to be able to criticise it without being attacked as racist.

Criticise it, but be really wary of banning something that seems entirely foreign to you just because you don’t understand it or are only working off what you have been told by other people, who are outside the system it has emerged from _as a signal of modesty_ and _symbolic femininity in observance of religion_ .

Being male, clearly I have disadvantages in this debate, but I am not the one claiming, that despite the West having vastly different cultural traditions, religous philosophy, historic gender roles, and economic foundations, what Muslim women all the world over want is
a) ‘sameness’ with Western women, or
b) ‘sameness in freedoms’ as their Muslim male counterparts, or
c) that the ethnocentric twentieth-century feminism (as experienced mostly by upper and middle-class Anglo-Saxon women) or Women’s Liberation (as exported by the United States throughought the 1960s) is the kind of cultural revolution the West should be forcing onto the Muslim world when we’re already considered cultural imperialists and fighting lopsided wars with eachother, or
d) expression of a nationalist political identity through adherence to a proscribed but largely symbolic dresscode (which is then legally enforced) is a good thing.

Virginia is generalising her specific experience of women in the cultural environment of Afghanistan to all Muslim women wearing burqas, and also seems to think the blunt instrument of law is the best way to go, so long as it goes in her favour.
Personally, I thinklasting cultural change should be slow and organic, preferably coming from within, not being foisted upon an already isolated and misunderstood minority in the name of altruism.

You know, there is actually a word which accurately describes a method of depriving individuals of personal freedom and personal responsibility, while only nominally serving their interests, and in fact pursuing another agenda; and when the pursued agenda is directly in conflict with the independent interests of the individuals…

Paternalistic adjective.
The quality of being paternal, as characterized by behaving in benevolent and yet intrusive manner towards underlings.
Attention feminists, that horrible feeling you have right now is called “situational irony”.

PS: I am all for encouraging burqa-veiling societies and individuals to place an emphasis on rationality and gender-equality (without forcing a bland gender-uniformity on anyone), and give individuals the right to interpret and pursue their own faith notions of cultural modesty and dress within the particular social norms of their environments.

I see it more as telling Muslem men that they can’t force their wives into hiding under a burka. But I don’t really know what the answer is to this one.

Good point. I actually think this is a storm in a teacup.

So, because Muslim women don’t choose to wear the burqa, we should force them not to wear it. And this liberates them how precisely?

ant, to say that something is an “arrogant display of disrespect to Australia and the Australian way of life”, is making an assumption that all people in australia agree with the same things that virginia does. I do not. I also don’t agree with people burning the australian flag in protest. I don’t agree with people who immigrate to australia and don’t speak the language. But, these are my beliefs. and to say that I agree with someone who is speaking about empowerment, yet would refuse a woman’s rights to dress as they feel – i mean, really! who would be enforcing the dress code? who will tell someone that what they wear is against the law? virginia? a lot of empowerment for her, not much for anyone else.

bellaa said: “I think a lot of Muslim women choose to wear the burqa”

LMFAO. 3 words that don’t go in the same sentence.

1. Muslim
2. Women
3. Choose

ant said :

I am not calling for it to be banned in Australia, but I do want to be able to freely criticise it without being called “racist”. I want anyone who objects to it to be able to criticise it without being attacked as racist.

I agree entirely, and I think pretty much everyone who objects to the proposed banning of the burqa will agree with you.

There seems to be a clash of views in this debate, between those who see calls against the burqa as some kind of racism, and others who see the wearing of the burqa as a symbol of a world where women have no rights, and are affronted when that world is brought into our world.

There was a recent article in the SMH about women’s issues in the countries that espouse sharia law that should be read in the context of this debate:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-new-feminism-life-and-death-20090705-d93t.html?page=-1

and here’s a snippet from it: “She is also banned from flying. To get to Australia she had to leave home under the all-enveloping burqa – a garment she describes as “disgusting” – travel by van to the Pakistan border, then by another van to a city in Pakistan, then fly to Bangkok, then to Sydney. The journey took almost three days. As the most outspoken woman in Afghanistan, she lives with the constant risk of murder.”

I don’t see the burqa as some quaint ethnic folk-costume. I see it as an instrument whereby women are controlled, limited and subjegated. It’s not something they do by “choice”, and the reasons behind it are not benign.

I am not calling for it to be banned in Australia, but I do want to be able to freely criticise it without being called “racist”. I want anyone who objects to it to be able to criticise it without being attacked as racist.

i love that the banner ad beside this thread is for ‘muslima’, a muslim matrimonial site, featuring a burqa-clad lass… : )

Two burqa-clad cannibals capture, kill and cook stand-up comedienne, Virginia Haussegger, and as they begin eating her, one cannibal asks the other: “Does this taste funny to you?”

johnboy said :

sepi said :

Virginia’s point is about Equality of women isn’t it? Not about being Australian and fitting in.

From Virginia’s original text:

The burka is an arrogant display of disrespect to Australia and the Australian way of life.

shouldn’t she also be saying that a sarong, kilt, any form of traditional clothing, also be shown to be an arrogant display of disrespect to australia and the australian way of life? and this from someone named haussegger? what is the respectful clothing of an australian? whatever they damn well want to wear.

if you don’t like what another person is wearing, don’t wear one yourself. If women are to be “empowered” by the banning of a piece of clothing, how do they have the choice to wear what they want? who is empowered? many muslim women don’t wear the burqua, whilst some do, but it is their choice. (at least here in australia)

No, we shouldn’t ban the burka completely, despite what Virginia says. People should be free to do as they wish in their own homes (well, to a certain extent).

We have a society where freedom of choice and freedom of speech is paramount.

But the wearing of the tent just highlights the opposite of that freedom. In most cases, demanded by male dominated adherence to a 7th century blood cult with a curious book to back it up. In some cases worn as a badge of honour to that cult. Wear it at home if it makes you feel better.

However, if those of different cultures wish to join and enjoy the benefits of our western culture they can’t have it both ways. Assimilate and join the society from which you benefit or return to the economically deprived and repressed society from which you ‘escaped’.

If you work in the public service, tents should be banned. If you work in private enterprise, the boss determines the rules despite what opportunities you may see to milk the mayor’s ‘human rights’ scam.

Staff in banks etc should have the same rules apply as to bike helmets. ‘No Tents Allowed’.

And these rules should also apply to hippies who wear sunglasses indoors and those gay people who stick them on the top of their bald heads like that ponce on Australian Top Model (which I didn’t watch!)

Virginia’s particular brand of childless-professional-journalist feminism is what she keeps contrasting the horrors Afghani women suffer in their third-world war-torn country, and she keeps referring to ‘The French Experience’, where its clearly more about Sarkozy’s debate on French national identity than women’s lib.
But as long as its running in a similar direction to her hobby horse, she’ll keep doing it.
I mean, who cares if you’re alienating a minority from society for nationalist politics, so long as you win some support for a feminist point?

And by referring to it as “un-Australian” she’s
1) using a word that only ever has a history of exclusion; and
2) drawing parallels (unintentional or not, just by using the word) in modern memory with Howard’s decade-of-rhetoric and Alan Jones’ buildup to December 11, 2005.
She might not be saying it herself, but she’s draped in her Australian flag thanks to her own cultural bias.

PS: She hasn’t referred to any kind of countervailing opinion in her own ‘coverage’, and as she was out-purdah to the people she was studying, any women she met in Afghanistan, even in their own home, while wearing her “journalist hat” were probably wearing a burqa.
IE: She couldn’t appreciate or form an accurate judgement of the forest because her massive feminist blind-spot (and probably a cameraman) was impeding her view of the trees.

sepi said :

Virginia’s point is about Equality of women isn’t it? Not about being Australian and fitting in.

Yes, I think that is her point – but shouldn’t true equality mean “the freedom to choose”. I think a lot of Muslim women choose to wear the burqa. They feel it is empowering to wear their religion on their sleeve (pardon the pun!). I honestly don’t think anyone could say wearing the burqa in Australian society is “easy”. I think it would take a lot of courage to walk outside and have everyone stare and point (which we all know happens).
But then again, the idea that a woman is forced to wear the burqa is abhorrent….. so that is where the issue lies, we want women to be able to choose to wear what they want… and how can we tell the difference between the two??
We can’t.

sepi said :

Virginia’s point is about Equality of women isn’t it? Not about being Australian and fitting in.

From Virginia’s original text:

The burka is an arrogant display of disrespect to Australia and the Australian way of life.

Virginia’s point is about Equality of women isn’t it? Not about being Australian and fitting in.

Skidbladnir said :

You can only show up in a burqa only if its made from an Australian flag.

GOLD lol!

You can only show up in a burqa only if its made from an Australian flag.

I should have perhaps added that Virginia is one of the most annoying cloth-eared ABC bints imaginable but, for once, I agree with her.

Thank you Jimmy. I’ll now collect my thoughts and comment later with the clear knowledge that I won’t offend anyone with a mis-spelling. I’ll adopt the “burka” version.

Wonder if ppl will turn up clad in green and gold face paint draped in aussie flag yelling not on my island – will prob be more civil then that lol

barking toad said :

Is it “burka” or “burqa”?

It is important I that I know this.

There is no consensus on the form of transliteration from the Arabic. Burka, burkha, burqa and burqua are all considered correct.

I fully endorse banning the banning of things…….

Ban it!

Is it “burka” or “burqa”?

It is important I that I know this.

Julie Posetti says its a debate.
http://twitter.com/julie_posetti/status/2431659497

ANU says lecture, JB says debate, you choose I guess! 🙂

So, is it a lecture or a debate?