KKK outfit worn in Australia Muslim veil protest

[RigPig]

Here I'll make it easier for you :

So if I want to build a Catholic church in down town Riyadh (added :, or any other Islamic country) that is OK? If I choose to eat bacon that is OK? If I choose to become Buddhist and I am currently Muslim that is OK? etc.

Insert ANSWER:

I do not believe you when you say you are interested in other opinions. You are attempting to set some moral equivalency trap. Go read Noam Chomsky on that issue instead of demanding answers to unanswerable questions. The question is intended to make someone look hypocritical or naive. It is a non sequitur and so cannot be answered. An Australian white supremacist should be able to wear a helmet in Parliament because you cannot build a Church in Saudi Arabia? The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

If you were interested in other people's opinions you would not demand people answer your questions and, instead you would listen to their statements and comments.

I know this would prevent a bunch of right wingers from dancing in glee when you trap a liberal with your forensics and garner their 'likes', but you might actually learn from another's point of view.

Be4lieve or don't believe what you will. The point I am trying to make is that if Muslims and Muslim extremists are allowed to follow their beliefs , according to the constitution, then so should these people, whether you believe in them or despise them. It is their right too.

The other point (or same point) is it is not a 2 way street, they (Islamists) DEMAND rights and respect but will not return it.

I also believe this was the point these men were trying to make and that it is legitimate.

But you are right about NEVER getting straight answers to straight forward questions.

[RigPig]

I too do not get the comparisons to places such as KSA & then suggesting Oz government also enacts discriminatory laws contrary to the Australian Constitution and culture.

The Speaker of the House put inplace an initial ban on the burka due to information that a protest was to be held in the public gallery (illegal) of the Chamber; this was immediately recinded in the next sitting of Parliament, when policy was put inplace for additional security vetting. The three men were also banned as protests are not permitted. These guys may have a fair point, I strongly doubt the point they were raising was based upon reasonable grounds, rather than to generate yet more discord in Oz society to try and garner support for their bigoted / racist agendas.

A senator, Lambie, has now put forward a private members bill to ban all facial covering, with very heavy penalties, specifically aimed at the Islamic community; it will not be passed. Politicians such as Lambie & the the behaviour of the three men are examples of contributing to ever more hostile social environment, it is not needed. Australia can get on top of the extremists without destroying or severly curtailing freedoms supported by the Australian Constitution.

Fair enough and we are lucky that Australia has the constitution and freedom laws in place. The comparison is to illustrate that I and others believe these "equalities" should be world wide and for ALL man kind and they are not. Islamist's are always using these freedoms when it suits them but do not extend the same respect and freedoms to other peoples beliefs (or none beliefs).

I don't know if the guy is a member of the KKK or not and I certainly don't agree with their creed, however it is a religious order (of sorts) and should be entitled to the same respect and rights as Muslim women wearing a Burka.

Either way the protest had it's effect, it gained headlines and made a point.

[RigPig]

It's institutionalized discrimination, the 'man' wearing the same niqab was refused entry. Muslim women can enter parliament AFTER showing their faces for security purposes, why would this not be afforded to anyone? Regardless of whether it is a KKK shroud, helmet or Ronald Reagan rubber mask.. You can't distinguish like this. Blank rule, yes or no.

Oz

it is not their religion to wear it, it is a choice the women wears it, mainly originated from the men not wanting anyone to look upon them, but it is not part of their religion only choice, and if a man chooses the same then so be it, otherwise he will be discriminated against, this muslim crap is starting to annoy many people around the world, they are the most racist people that I have met, they force people to convert, they kill you if you say anything against their child molesting prophet mohamad, and they think they are the most superior race, <deleted> em

The ridiculous part is that in KSA you will see the men lined up at the bridge to go across to Bahrain Thursday afternoon to go visit the bars and hookers and the women, if they are lucky enough to be able to go, ripping off their Burkas 1/2 way across the bridge and dressed like hookers.

Good on 'em I say

[kinmaew]

People who want to cover themselves up and dressing like they are in the 4th century should not be in democratic countries it just confirms what a failure their societies have become. There is no DSS in Pakistan. Instead its on me paying 25% of my income to support this lot.

[samran]

It's institutionalized discrimination, the 'man' wearing the same niqab was refused entry. Muslim women can enter parliament AFTER showing their faces for security purposes, why would this not be afforded to anyone? Regardless of whether it is a KKK shroud, helmet or Ronald Reagan rubber mask.. You can't distinguish like this. Blank rule, yes or no.

Oz

it is not their religion to wear it, it is a choice the women wears it, mainly originated from the men not wanting anyone to look upon them, but it is not part of their religion only choice, and if a man chooses the same then so be it, otherwise he will be discriminated against, this muslim crap is starting to annoy many people around the world, they are the most racist people that I have met, they force people to convert, they kill you if you say anything against their child molesting prophet mohamad, and they think they are the most superior race, <deleted> em

The ridiculous part is that in KSA you will see the men lined up at the bridge to go across to Bahrain Thursday afternoon to go visit the bars and hookers and the women, if they are lucky enough to be able to go, ripping off their Burkas 1/2 way across the bridge and dressed like hookers.

Good on 'em I say

So do I.

The RSA maintains its legitimacy through one thing, oil. If that goes it falls to bits. Their strict whacko theorcracy only lives cause of the oil money and we tolerate it.

[kinmaew]

The cutest girl is ALWAYS in the middle, why?

When the stones line up sometimes Mick and Keith are on the outside (Not saying they are cute but in terms of importance) so females should do the same!! Mix it up a bit!! too conservative.

[RigPig]

And freedom of expression, the Eureka Stockade comes to mind.

However still no point by point answers, just more rhetoric.

If you like you can change "Saudi" to Islam, same same and not different....

Answers PLEASE!!!

Here I'll make it easier for you :

So if I want to build a Catholic church in down town Riyadh (added :, or any other Islamic country) that is OK? If I choose to eat bacon that is OK? If I choose to become Buddhist and I am currently Muslim that is OK? etc.

Insert ANSWER:

It's not a 2 way street, and if you choose to live in a country / move/ emigrate, you should accept that country for what it is and assimilate. NOT TRY TO CHANGE THAT COUNTRY into the place you just left!! Why did you leave Saudi, Algeria or wherever to come live there?

Insert ANSWER :

When I was in Saudi, there were 2 doors to the Pizza Hut, is this what you want? Then go live there, don't try to force your views on a population that has done OK so far without it.

Insert ANSWER :

If face coverings are not permissible (and that is only because of the threat from Islamic terrorists) then it should be the same for EVERYONE!!!

Insert REPLY :

I don't remember any Australian "fundamentalists" threatening to cut off the heads of random people in Saudi......

Insert REPLY :

.

1) you should be able to do all those things. I believe in a strong secular democratic state where religion should not have any sway over laws. I dislike fundamentalist anything, whether they be Christian islamic.

2) as a child of migrants most people move to a place for a better life. As said, I'm all for maintaining the Australian consitution and the protections and freedoms maintained under it and so should people who move to oz. The question is, do you support the Australian constitution?

I note again that you seem happy enough to swallow your moral outrage to go live and work in these despotic countries.

3) I've answered your Pizza Hut question previously.

4)if face coverings aren't permissible then it should be the same for everyone. But if security experts have made assessments that certain face converings are fine to be worn after security checks have been done I have no problem withy that either.

If the same security people said wearing face coverings is not permissible even after security checks then Id agree with then too. Im just not going to rely on the edicts of online bigots. What is so hard to understand about that??

Again I note you continue to be happy to work on a country where face coverings are mandated by law and you feel your safety is fine doing so, otherwise you wouldn't be there.

5) neither do I, but that wasn't really a question wasn it? So how am I supposed to answer a statement?

Thank you I appreciate that. To be fair I will address your comments too, in the vein of a healthy discussion, which I hope we can all continue to have despite differing belifs.

Yes I do respect the Australian constituion, it isn't perfect, but it's probably as good as it gets for now.

I TOTALLY agree with your first answer.

I have answered your second point I believe, however you are wrong on the second comment, I had enough of Islamist bigotry and quit my position of a field foreman (in KSA at the time) because of it. I was making reasonably good money controlling the electrical maintenance on 6 oil rigs.

The Pizza hut example was to try to (maybe badly) illustrate the one sided view Islam has, it has no time for secular views and because of this should not be "given in to". "Give them an inch and they will take a mile", accept the culture you have chosen to assimilate into, abide by it's laws and respect the views of the majority. Do not try to change it for your own agenda.

The face covering should be equal to anyone, man, women Muslim or KKK. You may not agree with other peoples views, get over it they SHOULD have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of race, colour or religion.

Yes I guess it was really a statement aimed at highlighting why religion should take a backseat to security, and the reasons why these things are justified. Not for religion but the greater good of the population, it's a shame it has come to this.

Once again thank you for your answers and it is apparent we are not too far apart.

[notmyself]

The face covering should be equal to anyone, man, women Muslim or KKK. You may not agree with other peoples views, get over it they SHOULD have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of race, colour or religion.

So you agree that demanding an individual cover their face is a bad thing?

Edited October 28, 2014 by notmyself

[RigPig]

The face covering should be equal to anyone, man, women Muslim or KKK. You may not agree with other peoples views, get over it they SHOULD have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of race, colour or religion.

So you agree that demanding an individual cover their face is a bad thing?

I personally think face covering in public should be banned fullstop. There are good reasons why you can't wear a full face helmet in a bank, if your not riding the bike take it off. There are good reasons France banned it, but in saying that it has only come about because of abuse whether by bank robbers or Muslim extremists, and that's what's really wrong!!

But if you are going to have these rules, regulations and laws it should be the same for everyone, regardless....

[farang000999]

I wonder if I could get into the female changing room in one of the busy Thai gyms with one of those things.

[canman]

Hmmm

So if I want to build a Catholic church in down town Riyadh that is OK? If I choose to eat bacon that is OK? If I choose to become Buddhist and I am currently Muslim that is OK? etc.

It's not a 2 way street, and if you choose to live in a country / move/ emigrate, you should accept that country for what it is and assimilate.

Fine then. Why didn't you write all that in Thai then? Surely you could lead by example given the importance you place on assimilation.

As for two way streets. Fine too. where are you from? Shall we apply the same rules for you to get a tourist visa to come here as your home country makes Thais get to go there?

Fairs fair right?

Firstly this is an English speaking forum and what you are asking is against forum rules. Secondly I work in MANY different countries with MANY different languages (including Libya, Saudi and Algeria) and although my technical skills, with what I do, are good my language skills are not. That coupled with working for many years in generator rooms has "garbled" my tonal balance. There would be nothing I would like better than to speak, read and write fluant Thai, and I hope one day when I get the chance I will at least become more proficient..

So I appreciate you cutting my reply to you down to a sentence and trying to divert the subject away from what I posted. I was born in England, raised in New Zealand but spent most of my life in Australia, which I consider my nationality, I have 3 children and 2 grandchildren there.

I have no trouble holding a visa here I am old enough and have more than enough money in the bank. I have had no problem taking girl friends back to Australia.

Yes fair is fair.

Could you answer my last post point by point as I have yours PLEASE, I am curious and have a reasonably open mind...convince me, go ahead.....

OR are we to assume you are a hypocrite and a troll trying to justify your own mistakes in life.

My apologies mods but as was stated, fair is fair..... And I believe the "debate" is justified under the context of the OP.

So I take it you are making excuses already about your inability to speak Thai.

I was making an analogous point about two way streets on the visa issue which you skipped around. Should there be like for like laws for you to come visit and live here that Australia applies to others?

As for what Saudi does? Why should i care?

What i care about is that australian laws are respected. And despite what you hear here, freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. Has been since 1901. If you don't like it, run for parliament or get a referendum up.

As for security matters, I'll leave and respect the decision of parliamentary, banking and airport security to professionals. Not politicans and not vigilante keyboard warriors. And certainly not the three dickheads who fronted parliament today.

But for some reason if a decision by asio and the afp doesn't go the way of these idiots, all of sudden it is political correctness gone mad....

As I said, I'm all for following the rules. The constitution is a pretty big one. I really don't care what Saudi does. It's an intolerant craphole i have no intention of going to live in. I always find it funny that people raise Saudi as an example 'they are an intollerant bunch of idiots so let's do just as they do!!'.

But I note you seem to have swallowed your online moral outrage towards to place to go make a buck there...so don't go chastising me about my life choices please. Not that I've got any regrets on that front. I run a successful business which employs a few people. Happy family blah blah blah. What did you think I was, a poor English teacher or something?

Great answer, more rhetoric but still no direct answers....

My being able to speak Thai (and I can but not good enough, and I can't read or write it) has nothing to do with the OP, which is about 3 people making an expression to point out inequalities in rights and justice, right or wrong, they have the right to highlight and bring their view to the people (unlike an Islamic country).

Yes i am a whore and take the money paid by American countries because the people there (in the countries I work in, which includes Thailand, PNG, Ukraine etc.) can't do what i do. And as crass as it is the money may as well go in my pocket (and come to Thailand) than someone else!!

And you are right the constitution does give freedom of religion, not like Saudi, Algeria, Libya, Egypt....

Why should you care what Saudi thinks, because you think Australia should follow suit (judging by your posts). Name ANY other Islamic country with equal tolerance as Australia has, just one.......

Who do you think sets the guidelines for airport and banking security....... the politicians, this is where laws come from.....

Well once again I have answered your questions point by point, do you think you could do the same, starting with my first post ?????

PROBABLY NOT, prove me wrong PLEASE !!!

They weren't answers, mostly just hyperbole on your behalf.

Dunno how you missinterpret my remarks of Saudi being an 'intollerant crap hole' as something I want Australia to become. Do show me where I said that?

I'll say it again. I'll even type it slowly for you. I respect the australian constitution. Including the bit about freedom of relgion.

Question is, do you respect the australian consitution? Or only the bits that you like?

The thing is; islam is not a religion it is a political system / ideology.

[notmyself]

The face covering should be equal to anyone, man, women Muslim or KKK. You may not agree with other peoples views, get over it they SHOULD have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of race, colour or religion.

So you agree that demanding an individual cover their face is a bad thing?

I personally think face covering in public should be banned fullstop. There are good reasons why you can't wear a full face helmet in a bank, if your not riding the bike take it off. There are good reasons France banned it, but in saying that it has only come about because of abuse whether by bank robbers or Muslim extremists, and that's what's really wrong!!

But if you are going to have these rules, regulations and laws it should be the same for everyone, regardless....

Indeed and we already have many of these things such as a name, address, passport and so on. The whole issue has been blown up and mixed up.

I personally think face covering in public should be banned fullstop.

So someone's deeply held belief should be trumped by the welfare of others?

[samran]

And freedom of expression, the Eureka Stockade comes to mind.

However still no point by point answers, just more rhetoric.

If you like you can change "Saudi" to Islam, same same and not different....

Answers PLEASE!!!

Here I'll make it easier for you :

So if I want to build a Catholic church in down town Riyadh (added :, or any other Islamic country) that is OK? If I choose to eat bacon that is OK? If I choose to become Buddhist and I am currently Muslim that is OK? etc.

Insert ANSWER:

It's not a 2 way street, and if you choose to live in a country / move/ emigrate, you should accept that country for what it is and assimilate. NOT TRY TO CHANGE THAT COUNTRY into the place you just left!! Why did you leave Saudi, Algeria or wherever to come live there?

Insert ANSWER :

When I was in Saudi, there were 2 doors to the Pizza Hut, is this what you want? Then go live there, don't try to force your views on a population that has done OK so far without it.

Insert ANSWER :

If face coverings are not permissible (and that is only because of the threat from Islamic terrorists) then it should be the same for EVERYONE!!!

Insert REPLY :

I don't remember any Australian "fundamentalists" threatening to cut off the heads of random people in Saudi......

Insert REPLY :

.

1) you should be able to do all those things. I believe in a strong secular democratic state where religion should not have any sway over laws. I dislike fundamentalist anything, whether they be Christian islamic.

2) as a child of migrants most people move to a place for a better life. As said, I'm all for maintaining the Australian consitution and the protections and freedoms maintained under it and so should people who move to oz. The question is, do you support the Australian constitution?

I note again that you seem happy enough to swallow your moral outrage to go live and work in these despotic countries.

3) I've answered your Pizza Hut question previously.

4)if face coverings aren't permissible then it should be the same for everyone. But if security experts have made assessments that certain face converings are fine to be worn after security checks have been done I have no problem withy that either.

If the same security people said wearing face coverings is not permissible even after security checks then Id agree with then too. Im just not going to rely on the edicts of online bigots. What is so hard to understand about that??

Again I note you continue to be happy to work on a country where face coverings are mandated by law and you feel your safety is fine doing so, otherwise you wouldn't be there.

5) neither do I, but that wasn't really a question wasn it? So how am I supposed to answer a statement?

Thank you I appreciate that. To be fair I will address your comments too, in the vein of a healthy discussion, which I hope we can all continue to have despite differing belifs.

Yes I do respect the Australian constituion, it isn't perfect, but it's probably as good as it gets for now.

I TOTALLY agree with your first answer.

I have answered your second point I believe, however you are wrong on the second comment, I had enough of Islamist bigotry and quit my position of a field foreman (in KSA at the time) because of it. I was making reasonably good money controlling the electrical maintenance on 6 oil rigs.

The Pizza hut example was to try to (maybe badly) illustrate the one sided view Islam has, it has no time for secular views and because of this should not be "given in to". "Give them an inch and they will take a mile", accept the culture you have chosen to assimilate into, abide by it's laws and respect the views of the majority. Do not try to change it for your own agenda.

The face covering should be equal to anyone, man, women Muslim or KKK. You may not agree with other peoples views, get over it they SHOULD have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of race, colour or religion.

Yes I guess it was really a statement aimed at highlighting why religion should take a backseat to security, and the reasons why these things are justified. Not for religion but the greater good of the population, it's a shame it has come to this.

Once again thank you for your answers and it is apparent we are not too far apart.

There will always be a tension between freedom of religion, anti-discrimination and freedom of expression vs secular law.

For instance: catholic priests. A male only job. Freedom of religion or freedom of expression?

Cannon law. Used to adjudicate the actions of those inside the church. Used for decades to hide pedophiles hiding in the church. Freedom of religion vs rule of law

The veil. Freedom of religion, freedom of expression vs the need for security.

Our society forces us to be pragmatic. And so it should be in a pluralistic society you have to take the individual first and foremost. If they've broken the law, they should be punished. But I'm not going to take the actions of one to characterise a whole group of people. And especially those who have come to Australia. Most of those just want to get on with their lives. Always have, always will, and over time they find their place.

But if they do nothing that forces their views on others, why should I worry? I know I dont, but others will. So long as they don't break the law of the land, they can do what they want. That goes equally for a veil wearer as well as the KKK costume idiots. But if any of those ever become merchants of hate, then equally they should be dealt with.

Edited October 28, 2014 by samran

[Tep]

Be4lieve or don't believe what you will. The point I am trying to make is that if Muslims and Muslim extremists are allowed to follow their beliefs , according to the constitution, then so should these people, whether you believe in them or despise them. It is their right too.

The other point (or same point) is it is not a 2 way street, they (Islamists) DEMAND rights and respect but will not return it.

I also believe this was the point these men were trying to make and that it is legitimate.

But you are right about NEVER getting straight answers to straight forward questions.

OK. So you say you want to hear others' opinions. I find the requirement for face covering medieval, patriarchal and demeaning. I find it personally confronting and discomforting. If a protest movement developed in Australia against this practice led by muslim or lapsed muslim women and men wanting to influence their brethren to change their habits, then I would support this happily. But we are not talking about this are we. We are not talking about a real, honest, legitimate protest. We are talking about taking cultural totems and practices of a group of people and attacking these to meet an agenda that is not about change but about discrimination. Silly white men are not the ones to legitimately carry forward an argument against the face coverings of muslim women. they have another agenda altogether. And that agenda is not consistent with the intent of the Australian Constitution and the concept of a modern, multicultural democratic and developed country to allow all people to be treated equally.

Equal treatment does not mean one rule or set of behaviours being rigidly universal. So the assumption that allowing a certain group of people i.e. muslim women to wear their religiously or culturally mandated face covering then allows stupid white men to wear KKK costumes is a fallacy. Different rules and standards are applied in all sorts of cases. Drinking ages differ between States in the US. Age of Consent differs between countries. Religious symbols and clothing are allowed for some religions but not others. Catholic priests are allowed to refuse to give information about criminal activity on the basis of the confessional. The list goes on and on.

Finally, I do not support your contention that the application of discriminatory practices by one culture or country requires the same treatment in response. this is antithetical to the constitutional democracy that we live under. It is like a bind person saying that because they cannot read books, then all books should be removed and no-one should be able to read them. You cannot build a church in Saudi. You cannot do many things there. Why? The reasons are immensely complex - historical, cultural, political, geo-political, economic and more. Will it change? We all can hope so. Does moral equivalency require us to discriminate against these cultures and people in retaliation? No.

The Parliament stunt was not a legitimate protest. These stupid white men should go away and enrol some dark skinned people in their movement as well as some women of different cultures. When they do this, I will look again at what they are saying and how they say it. People fear that muslim immigrants will change Australia for the worse. I don't agree. We are stronger than that. Australia will change muslim immigrants for the better.

[canman]

Be4lieve or don't believe what you will. The point I am trying to make is that if Muslims and Muslim extremists are allowed to follow their beliefs , according to the constitution, then so should these people, whether you believe in them or despise them. It is their right too.

The other point (or same point) is it is not a 2 way street, they (Islamists) DEMAND rights and respect but will not return it.

I also believe this was the point these men were trying to make and that it is legitimate.

But you are right about NEVER getting straight answers to straight forward questions.

OK. So you say you want to hear others' opinions. I find the requirement for face covering medieval, patriarchal and demeaning. I find it personally confronting and discomforting. If a protest movement developed in Australia against this practice led by muslim or lapsed muslim women and men wanting to influence their brethren to change their habits, then I would support this happily. But we are not talking about this are we. We are not talking about a real, honest, legitimate protest. We are talking about taking cultural totems and practices of a group of people and attacking these to meet an agenda that is not about change but about discrimination. Silly white men are not the ones to legitimately carry forward an argument against the face coverings of muslim women. they have another agenda altogether. And that agenda is not consistent with the intent of the Australian Constitution and the concept of a modern, multicultural democratic and developed country to allow all people to be treated equally.

Equal treatment does not mean one rule or set of behaviours being rigidly universal. So the assumption that allowing a certain group of people i.e. muslim women to wear their religiously or culturally mandated face covering then allows stupid white men to wear KKK costumes is a fallacy. Different rules and standards are applied in all sorts of cases. Drinking ages differ between States in the US. Age of Consent differs between countries. Religious symbols and clothing are allowed for some religions but not others. Catholic priests are allowed to refuse to give information about criminal activity on the basis of the confessional. The list goes on and on.

Finally, I do not support your contention that the application of discriminatory practices by one culture or country requires the same treatment in response. this is antithetical to the constitutional democracy that we live under. It is like a bind person saying that because they cannot read books, then all books should be removed and no-one should be able to read them. You cannot build a church in Saudi. You cannot do many things there. Why? The reasons are immensely complex - historical, cultural, political, geo-political, economic and more. Will it change? We all can hope so. Does moral equivalency require us to discriminate against these cultures and people in retaliation? No.

The Parliament stunt was not a legitimate protest. These stupid white men should go away and enrol some dark skinned people in their movement as well as some women of different cultures. When they do this, I will look again at what they are saying and how they say it. People fear that muslim immigrants will change Australia for the worse. I don't agree. We are stronger than that. Australia will change muslim immigrants for the better.

"These stupid white men should go away and enrol some dark skinned people in their movement as well as some women of different cultures. When they do this, I will look again at what they are saying and how they say it"

You seem to be educated and left leaning in your ideology, do you not see how racist the above line is?

[Tep]

"These stupid white men should go away and enrol some dark skinned people in their movement as well as some women of different cultures. When they do this, I will look again at what they are saying and how they say it"

You seem to be educated and left leaning in your ideology, do you not see how racist the above line is?

I am a white man. I neither hate nor regret being white nor being male. Sorry, Canman, I have said this to others, but white men do not get to play either the race card or the sexist card. I know it is unfair but it is a consequence of thousands of years of abuse of our power and position.

Reductionism on the basis of race or economic ideology misses the point I was trying to make I think. I know the limits of my own racism and that post was not racist.

We can find a thread on economic theory and markets and debate this if you like and you will soon see how wrong you are to call me out for being a bolshi.

I do not retreat from my statements about those 'protestors'.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Tep

[chuckd]

snip>

When I was in Saudi, there were 2 doors to the Pizza Hut, is this what you want? Then go live there, don't try to force your views on a population that has done OK so far without it.

Insert ANSWER :

If he answers your questions at all, I doubt he will be able to answer this one.

He likely won't have a clue to the two door question.

Oh Charles, I know you have trouble keeping up with the young ones, and probably still kicking yourself for leaving all those munitions lying around for ISIS to play with, but the above question is easy to answer.

No I don't want segregated facilities.

But I seriously though you'd be in favour of something like this. You of all people!!! I mean werent the Jim Crow laws for you the hey day of US civilisation?

I'm also a bit confused about you not liking my constitutionalist stance...it is all well and good for you to run around protecting your constitution when some idiot goes around shooting up a dozen people as it does happen every other week in the US, but when I stand up for my own consitution, I become a Islamist? Good god, what a hypocrite you are sometimes.

Sam:

Where, exactly, have I said I do not like your stand on the Australian constitution? Frankly I couldn't care less what your stand is on your constitution.

Care to point out my offending post or are you just going to load up more sarcasm?

I've made over 7,000 posts in nearly 12 years so surely you can find one post of mine that is critical of your position on the Australian constitution.

Unlike you, I don't comment on something that has no impact on me and of which I know nothing. That never seems to stop you.

[samran]

snip>

When I was in Saudi, there were 2 doors to the Pizza Hut, is this what you want? Then go live there, don't try to force your views on a population that has done OK so far without it.

Insert ANSWER :

If he answers your questions at all, I doubt he will be able to answer this one.

He likely won't have a clue to the two door question.

Oh Charles, I know you have trouble keeping up with the young ones, and probably still kicking yourself for leaving all those munitions lying around for ISIS to play with, but the above question is easy to answer.

No I don't want segregated facilities.

But I seriously though you'd be in favour of something like this. You of all people!!! I mean werent the Jim Crow laws for you the hey day of US civilisation?

I'm also a bit confused about you not liking my constitutionalist stance...it is all well and good for you to run around protecting your constitution when some idiot goes around shooting up a dozen people as it does happen every other week in the US, but when I stand up for my own consitution, I become a Islamist? Good god, what a hypocrite you are sometimes.

Sam:

Where, exactly, have I said I do not like your stand on the Australian constitution? Frankly I couldn't care less what your stand is on your constitution.

Care to point out my offending post or are you just going to load up more sarcasm?

I've made over 7,000 posts in nearly 12 years so surely you can find one post of mine that is critical of your position on the Australian constitution.

Unlike you, I don't comment on something that has no impact on me and of which I know nothing. That never seems to stop you.

Charles is angry.

I had to come up with a response worthy of your snarky and condescending lines about me not answering and not knowing anything. I guess I hit a bit too close to home.....and no, I wasn't being sarcastic...

As for the consitution, I was speaking about it before, and that is how it framed my answers on this topic, which you selectively edited.

Edited October 28, 2014 by samran

[RigPig]

The thing is; islam is not a religion it is a political system / ideology.

Cult, if you look up the definition of one...

[RigPig]

Indeed and we already have many of these things such as a name, address, passport and so on. The whole issue has been blown up and mixed up.

I personally think face covering in public should be banned fullstop.

So someone's deeply held belief should be trumped by the welfare of others?

Isn't it always? And yes, especially when it has been caused by the abuse fundementalist of those same beliefs...

[chuckd]

If he answers your questions at all, I doubt he will be able to answer this one.

He likely won't have a clue to the two door question.

Oh Charles, I know you have trouble keeping up with the young ones, and probably still kicking yourself for leaving all those munitions lying around for ISIS to play with, but the above question is easy to answer.

No I don't want segregated facilities.

But I seriously though you'd be in favour of something like this. You of all people!!! I mean werent the Jim Crow laws for you the hey day of US civilisation?

I'm also a bit confused about you not liking my constitutionalist stance...it is all well and good for you to run around protecting your constitution when some idiot goes around shooting up a dozen people as it does happen every other week in the US, but when I stand up for my own consitution, I become a Islamist? Good god, what a hypocrite you are sometimes.

Sam:

Where, exactly, have I said I do not like your stand on the Australian constitution? Frankly I couldn't care less what your stand is on your constitution.

Care to point out my offending post or are you just going to load up more sarcasm?

I've made over 7,000 posts in nearly 12 years so surely you can find one post of mine that is critical of your position on the Australian constitution.

Unlike you, I don't comment on something that has no impact on me and of which I know nothing. That never seems to stop you.

Charles is angry.

I had to come up with a response worthy of your snarky and condescending lines about me not answering and not knowing anything. I guess I hit a bit too close to home.....and no, I wasn't being sarcastic...

As for the consitution, I was speaking about it before, and that is how it framed my answers on this topic, which you selectively edited.

I selectively edited RigPig's post (not yours, I deleted yours entirely) in accordance with article 5 of Forum Netiquette instructions. As you are a former mod, I would have thought you know the rules.

You were lying when you said I posted a dislike of your position on the Australian constitution. Plain and simple..

Enough said on my part.

Edited October 28, 2014 by chuckd

[RigPig]

Be4lieve or don't believe what you will. The point I am trying to make is that if Muslims and Muslim extremists are allowed to follow their beliefs , according to the constitution, then so should these people, whether you believe in them or despise them. It is their right too.

The other point (or same point) is it is not a 2 way street, they (Islamists) DEMAND rights and respect but will not return it.

I also believe this was the point these men were trying to make and that it is legitimate.

But you are right about NEVER getting straight answers to straight forward questions.

OK. So you say you want to hear others' opinions. I find the requirement for face covering medieval, patriarchal and demeaning. I find it personally confronting and discomforting. If a protest movement developed in Australia against this practice led by muslim or lapsed muslim women and men wanting to influence their brethren to change their habits, then I would support this happily. But we are not talking about this are we. We are not talking about a real, honest, legitimate protest. We are talking about taking cultural totems and practices of a group of people and attacking these to meet an agenda that is not about change but about discrimination. Silly white men are not the ones to legitimately carry forward an argument against the face coverings of muslim women. they have another agenda altogether. And that agenda is not consistent with the intent of the Australian Constitution and the concept of a modern, multicultural democratic and developed country to allow all people to be treated equally.

Equal treatment does not mean one rule or set of behaviours being rigidly universal. So the assumption that allowing a certain group of people i.e. muslim women to wear their religiously or culturally mandated face covering then allows stupid white men to wear KKK costumes is a fallacy. Different rules and standards are applied in all sorts of cases. Drinking ages differ between States in the US. Age of Consent differs between countries. Religious symbols and clothing are allowed for some religions but not others. Catholic priests are allowed to refuse to give information about criminal activity on the basis of the confessional. The list goes on and on.

Finally, I do not support your contention that the application of discriminatory practices by one culture or country requires the same treatment in response. this is antithetical to the constitutional democracy that we live under. It is like a bind person saying that because they cannot read books, then all books should be removed and no-one should be able to read them. You cannot build a church in Saudi. You cannot do many things there. Why? The reasons are immensely complex - historical, cultural, political, geo-political, economic and more. Will it change? We all can hope so. Does moral equivalency require us to discriminate against these cultures and people in retaliation? No.

The Parliament stunt was not a legitimate protest. These stupid white men should go away and enrol some dark skinned people in their movement as well as some women of different cultures. When they do this, I will look again at what they are saying and how they say it. People fear that muslim immigrants will change Australia for the worse. I don't agree. We are stronger than that. Australia will change muslim immigrants for the better.

Good post, thanks.

However, and before I start this I will make it clear, I DO NOT SUPPORT the KKK..... OK

But I do support their right to their belifes and opinions, their right to make a point. I also believe people are generally smart enough to work it out for themselves (yeah I know all the down sides to that statement but you can't have your cake and eat it). and you also state that you think "We are stronger than that. Australia will change muslim immigrants for the better."

I hope so.

You say they are "Silly White men" Others would disagree (not necessarily myself) and they have the right to their opinion and belifs too, whether we think it is right or wrong is irrelenent, this is what the constitution is about.

You also say "Equal treatment does not mean one rule or set of behaviours being rigidly universal. So the assumption that allowing a certain group of people i.e. muslim women to wear their religiously or culturally mandated face covering then allows stupid white men to wear KKK costumes is a fallacy."

Why not? Who gets to decide?

Also

"And that agenda is not consistent with the intent of the Australian Constitution and the concept of a modern, multicultural democratic and developed country to allow all people to be treated equally."

As neither of us where there when it was drafted how do we know? This is just your opinion, which is valid but not necessarily fact. We were issuing tags to shoot native Australians back then so it may well have been their intent.

Finally you say,

"Finally, I do not support your contention that the application of discriminatory practices by one culture or country requires the same treatment in response. this is antithetical to the constitutional democracy that we live under. It is like a bind person saying that because they cannot read books, then all books should be removed and no-one should be able to read them."

How about allowing people to have the right to be able to see should they choose to do so? How else do we "encourage" these countries to allow freedom of speech and religion? By allowing it in our countries and not questioning it in theirs? Or maybe by pointing out we have these rights and so should you in this day and age! Everyone should have these basic human rights without fear of persicution. Using religion and culture to(and oil) to prevent these things is not an excuse.

I do love an interesting and intelligent debate, and respect your views, thanks, it's a nice change from the usual "slanging matches" on here.

I am sure at the end of the day we can agree to disagree if that's where it ends up.

[RigPig]

I MUST say, one thing this thread has shown is it is possible for people from different back grounds and societies to have intelligent and (for the most part) amicable discussions without personal abuse. The exchange of ideas is what these forums should be and are what it is all about. Sometimes when living in foreign countries like Thailand, intelligent and stimulating conversations are hard to come by. I guess that's why a lot of people spend so much time in bars.

Thanks to everyone for sharing their ideas and opinions in a civil manner, that's how we learn and I guess to some degree change the world (or at least our little corner of it).

[nontabury]

So easy to attack the protesters instead of their message.

Hats off to the 3 guys. Shown the discrimination to all.

Well, when the parties they are members of have policies that would want to kick me and my family out of Australia, then yep, I will.

But I guess you have no problem with their policies?

But you go on and complain about how you feel discriminated against.....I'm sure Nige will be the saviour for you from all of your problems! Nige Nige Nige!!! Baby.

Who or what is Niga Niga Niga ?

[samran]

So easy to attack the protesters instead of their message.

Hats off to the 3 guys. Shown the discrimination to all.

Well, when the parties they are members of have policies that would want to kick me and my family out of Australia, then yep, I will.

But I guess you have no problem with their policies?

But you go on and complain about how you feel discriminated against.....I'm sure Nige will be the saviour for you from all of your problems! Nige Nige Nige!!! Baby.

Who or what is Niga Niga Niga ?

That is an 'e' not an 'a'. "Nige" short for Nigel Farage. Leader of UKIP (party motto 'lie back and think of England').

He has a few fanboys on this site.

Edited October 28, 2014 by samran

[canman]

"These stupid white men should go away and enrol some dark skinned people in their movement as well as some women of different cultures. When they do this, I will look again at what they are saying and how they say it"

You seem to be educated and left leaning in your ideology, do you not see how racist the above line is?

I am a white man. I neither hate nor regret being white nor being male. Sorry, Canman, I have said this to others, but white men do not get to play either the race card or the sexist card. I know it is unfair but it is a consequence of thousands of years of abuse of our power and position.

Reductionism on the basis of race or economic ideology misses the point I was trying to make I think. I know the limits of my own racism and that post was not racist.

We can find a thread on economic theory and markets and debate this if you like and you will soon see how wrong you are to call me out for being a bolshi.

I do not retreat from my statements about those 'protestors'.

Your entitled to your own opinion of course but I for one do not accept the premis of the sins of our fathers being visited upon us.

[H1w4yR1da]

Vote UKIP!

Mate, you have issues getting off on shit like this and then using it to tar all and sundry.

'getting off' on this?

I guess that speaks volumes on how your brain works. Bu I can't see where I've tarred 'all and sundry'. I was commenting on the KFC employee. Though his aggressive behavior is consistent with my experience of Muslims in UK.

What argument? I do not debate you. You have nothing to say of relevance. I have told you repeatedly that I will respond to you when you use serious and meaningful words. Whitey. Muslim Gang Rapes. Moderate Muslims. Your garbled, disassociated, incoherent ranting is not serious or meaningful. You bait people who do not accept your particular bile. You get back what you give out. You use serious and meaningful words, then I will be happy to respond to those. Until then I call you out as a bigot and provocateur.

Right! I guess that explains why my posts get so few 'likes'.

But that's a typical self-hating white liberal on a guilt-trip reply. Says the reply is 'not serious' so he can ignore any questions raised.

My replies are direct and to the point. If you can't follow them, (though many others do) then you should work on your reading comprehension.

And your comments on whites and race in many threads onTV are the height of race-baiting. They'd make famous racists like Eric Holder and Al Sharpton proud.

Vote UKIP!

Edited October 28, 2014 by H1w4yR1da

[H1w4yR1da]

I am a white man. I neither hate nor regret being white nor being male. Sorry, Canman, I have said this to others, but white men do not get to play either the race card or the sexist card. I know it is unfair but it is a consequence of thousands of years of abuse of our power and position.

Reductionism on the basis of race or economic ideology misses the point I was trying to make I think. I know the limits of my own racism and that post was not racist.

Your post was thoroughly racist.

Sorry, but who put some sad little left wing social warrior in charge of what white men can or cannot do?

What you're real saying is that when someone is racist or sexist towards a white man, that racism and sexism doesn't exist. They just have to accept it because of historical actions by their forefathers.

Thankfully, these these kind of ridiculously OTT PC thoughts are in the minority as proven by your posts being challenged by a multitude of posters here.

BTW, African, Arab and various indigenous peoples were murdering, enslaving and committing genocide against each other long before the white man came along.

[RichieKaen]

The main and underlying catalyst for things such as the protest at parliament and many peoples objection to the burqa and niqab is that this form of attire is one of the tools used to subjugate and make second class citizens of roughly half the population in those muslim countries where it is "encouraged" and enforced.

It always astounds me when I'm walking down the street on a hot day and I see a muslim man dressed in a short-sleeved polo neck shirt with short pants, looking quite comfortable and pleased with himself, being followed by his wife/wives dressed in their portable prisons i.e. burqa or niqab. Can't the muslim men see the hypocrisy in it?

[laislica]

Kudos to the Australian Christian Lobby for calling these clowns out.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/27/anti-burqa-protesters-try-to-enter-parliament-wearing-ku-klux-klan-hood-motorbike-helmet-and-niqab?CMP=soc_567

Yeah! With the usual liberal apologist BS!

"The Australian Christian Lobby’s Queensland director, Wendy Francis, who saw the protest, described the stunt as “so hurtful” and said Muslim women she knew “wanted a peaceful Australia every bit as much as much as my Christian friends”."

What's the expression....."Gods don't kill people, people with Gods kill people" My invisible friend is stronger than your invisible friend! Does Wendy Francis know that some Muslim men and women I know would kill her for being a Christian?

Actually, for being non Muslim.

In the UK the Muslims are promising to pass a law to male it legal for Muslim men to rape white women!

The problem is that the moderate Muslims do not stand up for themselves and are dominated by the radical Muslims.

Such a pity - All done in the name of religion!