KKK outfit worn in Australia Muslim veil protest

[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 ?

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.

Would that be the same Nigel Farage in this photo

Surrounded by other candidates for UKIP in the recent EU elections.

In my own region Yorkshire, UKIP gained 3 of the 6 seats, including one by UKIP candidate

Amjad Mahmood Bashir a Muslim, who gained votes from Muslim and none Muslim, including

People from Rotherham, a town in which 1400 very young girls were (racially) sexually exploited by Muslim men, assisted by members of the local council and police, who instead of standing up to these animals decided it would be better to bury their heads in the sand than to be accused of racialism. It would seem that Australia also has people who will not face reality and instead prefer to label anybody who does not agree with their point of view as racialist.

My I suggest samran that before you throw around wild accusations that you know what you are talking about.

[RigPig]

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?

Oh I am sure they do, and it isn't a (woman's) choice either. There "native" dress is women in black and men in white.

[Tep]

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.

A better appellation would be 'Samuel'. Match tone for tone. But then Americans of your generation don't really do nuance do you? That's why you read it as sarcasm. The rest of your post is substance so I won't comment on it at all. Far more important to get the style right in these cases when playing out the line I think.

[Tep]

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.

I am not sure if I am up for a full on, multifaceted, point by point debate. On an number of issues, I think that it will just be a never ending circularity. But lets see. You first address the issue of freedom of expression. You do not agree with the KKK world view but you maintain their right to express it. Conceptually, I have to agree with you. This is a fundamental human right pretty much universally recognised. However, others have the right to disagree with the KKK or other speech that promotes hatred or demeans other people. US sports stars now understand the consequences of calling someone the F word. The N word has been long proscribed for any situation. So we can agree on the first issue I think.

You then come to the 'equal treatment' issue. My thesis is that equality of opportunity is not the same as, nor is it achieved by requiring everyone to be treated equally. This would not allow for individuality or freedom of expression. I provide a few examples of how rules vary in different contexts for the same type of people. The same in reverse. Just because one group of people have attained a right or a privilege based on some reason, then to require that to be applied to all other people is not promoting equality. So I do not think these protestors have a claim to the right to wear their protest paraphernalia at all; on a variety of grounds including cultural, religious and gender.

Then you seem to want to have a constitutional argument. Arguing constitutional law would probably be the most stuffing activity I can think of. And you actually made me go and look up the Australian Constitution to try and recall its provisions from my earlier school days. On the issue of not knowing the drafters intent, I strongly disagree. They left us with their intent in the document itself. The principles on which the Constitution is based, equality of opportunity, representative government, rights and freedoms inkling Habeas Corpus and the freedom of religion is a very clear expression of the cultural, political and ideological imperatives of the drafters. Besides the Constitution allows for the High Court to interpret, comment and elaborate. The Constitution is not a dead document, it is a living framework for all of us. The Constitution was not written in the context of a modern (as we know the term) multicultural Australia. Far from it. Those same people gave rise to the White Australia policy. But we have become a modern multicultural society under that Constitution. I don't think Jesus wrote our Constitution or handed it to Edmund Barton carved in stone from a burning bush on a mountain. Neither is the Constitution a Bill of Rights in the US context. But we have become what we are under this governing document.

Lastly you address discrimination. I think my thoughts are expressed on this earlier under equal treatment. Your main issue seems to be your right to see another person's face. If I was not taking your post seriously and having a slagging match with a right wing nut like I have done and currently do with a few of the more scurrilous haters and bigots, then I would be tempted to trivialise this. I do not think that this is a universal human right. I think you object to the face coverings (as do I) and believe it is your right to require their removal for whatever reason - it is your country or normal people don't do this sort of stuff or it represents a group of people who at this point in history are subjects of hatred. You then compound this view by saying that you are not allowed freedoms in their countries to build churches or wear g-strings in public or whatever it is you want to do. I think your position on this issue is the weakest but most representative of the view of the 'common man'. I think that we can deal with this particular issue in a way that is respectful, progressive and sensitive. I do not have the answer. I saw the report of the French actors on stage refusing to continue while people in the audience had these coverings. If these actors were protesting on the basis of that medieval practice demeaning women's rights and position in society and refusing to accept this for France, then I probably support them. If they did it because it is fashionable to object to all things Muslim because they are scared of Muslim kids in the Banlieues, then I don't support them.

So these are my responses. No doubt the loopy antagonists will find much fodder for ridicule and scorn. That does not worry me. They are sad old nobodies buying third world sex to see our their decking years. Don't speak Thai. Visa status of temporary visitor. TV full of UK or home country channels and a fridge full of frozen pies from Villa (at least mine is). These anti immigrant immigrants who go on about assimilation are hypocrites. They deserve to be scorned. Others who make an effort to understand their place here and how this might apply to others experiences I have more time for and am willing to engage in a discussion irrespective of whether views are changed.

Can't do too many more of these. Have a living to earn.

[Tep]

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!

You do this for the 'likes'? Sad little life you lead.

[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.

Would that be the same Nigel Farage in this photo ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect Thailand1414479701.207679.jpg

Surrounded by other candidates for UKIP in the recent EU elections.

In my own region Yorkshire, UKIP gained 3 of the 6 seats, including one by UKIP candidate

Amjad Mahmood Bashir a Muslim, who gained votes from Muslim and none Muslim, including

People from Rotherham, a town in which 1400 very young girls were (racially) sexually exploited by Muslim men, assisted by members of the local council and police, who instead of standing up to these animals decided it would be better to bury their heads in the sand than to be accused of racialism. It would seem that Australia also has people who will not face reality and instead prefer to label anybody who does not agree with their point of view as racialist.

My I suggest samran that before you throw around wild accusations that you know what you are talking about.

Are we talking about the same party?

Ukip does deal with far-right, racist Holocaust-denier to save EU funding http://gu.com/p/42ty3/stw

Running a muslim candidate? Watch out, that would get you called a terrorist sympathiser by some of the blokes on this board. He mustn't be a real muslim....

[Tep]

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!

Please notify us immediately that law is gazetted. I will then convert from being a liberal to a ranting, anti muslim, white supremacist. Do you want to bet money that that this will not happen in the UK in your lifetime or mine?

[chuckd]

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.

A better appellation would be 'Samuel'. Match tone for tone. But then Americans of your generation don't really do nuance do you? That's why you read it as sarcasm. The rest of your post is substance so I won't comment on it at all. Far more important to get the style right in these cases when playing out the line I think.

Tep:

Please read my signature below.

Edited to ask...How do you know his/her name isn't Samantha?

Edited October 28, 2014 by chuckd

[Tep]

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.

A better appellation would be 'Samuel'. Match tone for tone. But then Americans of your generation don't really do nuance do you? That's why you read it as sarcasm. The rest of your post is substance so I won't comment on it at all. Far more important to get the style right in these cases when playing out the line I think.

Tep:

Please read my signature below.

Edited to ask...How do you know his/her name isn't Samantha?

Can't see sigs on the iPad. Have to develop my TVF skills. See your sig on the web version. Gotta say that I am not available Chuck. Sorry but good luck with your search for true love. It can be delicate I hear for people in the twilight years.

Samran is a good Thai name with a particular meaning. Not telling you though. The post would worked with Samantha as well. The tone's the thing! (Hamlet).

Edited October 28, 2014 by Tep

[samran]

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.

A better appellation would be 'Samuel'. Match tone for tone. But then Americans of your generation don't really do nuance do you? That's why you read it as sarcasm. The rest of your post is substance so I won't comment on it at all. Far more important to get the style right in these cases when playing out the line I think.

Tep:

Please read my signature below.

Edited to ask...How do you know his/her name isn't Samantha?

Can't see sigs on the iPad. Have to develop my TVF skills. See your sig on the web version. Gotta say that I am not available Chuck. Sorry but good luck with your search for true love. It can be delicate I hear for people in the twilight years.

Samran is a good Thai name with a particular meaning. Not telling you though. The post would worked with Samantha as well. The tone's the thing! (Hamlet).

Sam is just fine. I'm not as old as him so Chuck would be too familiar and not respectful for someone in his twight years. Charles much more appropriate.

[JemJem]

If one cares about human rights and is truly against fascism, he/she should be against both KKK, White Pride etc types and Islamic fundamentalists.

Islamic fundamentalist types are the biggest threat now, but some of you seem to have forgotten about the likes of Timothy Mc Veigh, Anders Breivik. etc.

Be against both Islamic fascists and nationalist/racist fascists.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm against all of them, but radical Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat to Western civilization right now, by far. The others are smalltime in comparison.

[David48]

I'm late into this one, but when I watched it on the news, I did have a quiet chuckle.

What I haven't seen anywhere on the thread was the image of the boys ...

Credit

[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 ?

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.

Would that be the same Nigel Farage in this photo ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect Thailand1414479701.207679.jpg

Surrounded by other candidates for UKIP in the recent EU elections.

In my own region Yorkshire, UKIP gained 3 of the 6 seats, including one by UKIP candidate

Amjad Mahmood Bashir a Muslim, who gained votes from Muslim and none Muslim, including

People from Rotherham, a town in which 1400 very young girls were (racially) sexually exploited by Muslim men, assisted by members of the local council and police, who instead of standing up to these animals decided it would be better to bury their heads in the sand than to be accused of racialism. It would seem that Australia also has people who will not face reality and instead prefer to label anybody who does not agree with their point of view as racialist.

My I suggest samran that before you throw around wild accusations that you know what you are talking about.

Are we talking about the same party?

Ukip does deal with far-right, racist Holocaust-denier to save EU funding http://gu.com/p/42ty3/stw

Running a muslim candidate? Watch out, that would get you called a terrorist sympathiser by some of the blokes on this board. He mustn't be a real muslim....

Nigel Farage has not joined in any alliance with this Polish MEP's party.In fact he has gone on record stating the views of this Polish party must be condemned, and NO WAY does he agree with them. What has happened in the last week is that an Unelected Eurocrat has unsuccessfully attempted to disband this anti EU group by offering a Latvian member, the opportunity to lead a delegation, thus reducing the members from 7 countries to 6. This has left Nigel with no alternative than to accept this MEP into the group. Not a nice bedfellow agreed, but sometimes you have to go against your principles for the greater good, same when Winston Churchill had to make friends with Stalin during WW2.

Samran please don't accept any anti UKIP propaganda, until You've checked out the facts.

UKIP is not racialist,it is not anti-Muslim it is not even anti immigrant. It is a party that wants to control the UK boarder, restricting entry to those who would be of use to the UK, be they White,Black,Muslim or Christian. It's other main aim is of course to leave the very unpopular EU.

[harrry]

I think a few people are taking this a little gleefuly. I know I am not, I have lost respect for a poster here that I used to have a lot for and for my Country which although it provided opportunity for many who have left it by having policies which were the same for all no longer seems to do that.

If covering the face is good for one it should be for everyone. I much prefer it though as it used to be.

If anyone would throw Samran out of Australia it would only be for what he does not what he is. He has chosen to leave of his own accord. A decision I now applaud..

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been deleted, but there are many that should have been. I strongly suggest that members be more respectful toward others.

[samran]

I think a few people are taking this a little gleefuly. I know I am not, I have lost respect for a poster here that I used to have a lot for and for my Country which although it provided opportunity for many who have left it by having policies which were the same for all no longer seems to do that.

If covering the face is good for one it should be for everyone. I much prefer it though as it used to be.

If anyone would throw Samran out of Australia it would only be for what he does not what he is. He has chosen to leave of his own accord. A decision I now applaud..

I can go back if you want....

Why are you happy that I'm not there?

As a red head bigot once asked: 'please explain?'

Edited October 28, 2014 by samran

[Tep]

Are we talking about the same party?

Ukip does deal with far-right, racist Holocaust-denier to save EU funding http://gu.com/p/42ty3/stw

Running a muslim candidate? Watch out, that would get you called a terrorist sympathiser by some of the blokes on this board. He mustn't be a real muslim....

Nigel Farage has not joined in any alliance with this Polish MEP's party.In fact he has gone on record stating the views of this Polish party must be condemned, and NO WAY does he agree with them. What has happened in the last week is that an Unelected Eurocrat has unsuccessfully attempted to disband this anti EU group by offering a Latvian member, the opportunity to lead a delegation, thus reducing the members from 7 countries to 6. This has left Nigel with no alternative than to accept this MEP into the group. Not a nice bedfellow agreed, but sometimes you have to go against your principles for the greater good, same when Winston Churchill had to make friends with Stalin during WW2.

Samran please don't accept any anti UKIP propaganda, until You've checked out the facts.

UKIP is not racialist,it is not anti-Muslim it is not even anti immigrant. It is a party that wants to control the UK boarder, restricting entry to those who would be of use to the UK, be they White,Black,Muslim or Christian. It's other main aim is of course to leave the very unpopular EU.

Why is there so much noise about UKIP on a thread about Australia muslim veil protest? In an effort to understand, I read the UKIP manifesto on their website. Clearly a result of an effective marketing company as well as stronger party whips to keep the looneys in line has resulted in a more marketable message than earlier manifestos comprising a lunatic fringe wish list. But elements of that still remain. The devolution message is appealing. More power to the people to control their affairs. Dangerously attractive. But the party that proposes to allow MP's more control over expenses welcomes MPs from other parties who have been guilty of expenses fraud. The party that talks about skills based immigration attracts a clown-car full of loud mouthed, scare-mongering nutters on racial issues.

I highly recommend that anyone researching UKIP and reading their policies read http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/29/10-good-reasons-not-vote-ukip-nigel-farage-europe beforehand. It provides essential guidance in reading between the carefully crafted, massaged messages of empowerment and 'freedom'. Messages that include bringing back smoking. Was there ever a party tailor made for angry old white men?

The post above talks about the greater good. About political compromise to achieve this and so vindicates typical, slimy political trade offs (that all politicians to of course). I do not mind so much about the political trade off between a politician and a racist as much as I mind about the sentiment that this is for the greater good. Machete wielding ISIS cadres do not scare me because they are largely powerless theatre but these sentiments do scare me.

So why is this relevant to Australia? Because we've been through it all before and continue to do so. One Nation. The silly, stunt at Parliament. The hate jocks on radio. Australians could be seduced by such simplistic, artificial, self-serving rhetoric. This phenomenon is generational. It is being pushed by a generation of people for whom the modern world is too complex and difficult to accept. We do not have to wait for these old curmudgeons to die because they are on the margins of good sense and good taste. Further, modern countries have had decades of immigration, even the UK, and those immigrants have a right to vote also. There will continue to be right shifts and then left shifts in reaction as there hs been for decades. But we should remain vigilant about the potential for the lunatics to actually take over the asylum because of money or slick marketing. I cannot see Austrlaia or UK falling for this stuff. I just see parties like UKIP and whatever brand comes up in Australia as being spoilers.

Bring back smoking. Really. You want to be taken seriously with that? And I am an ex smoker who does not object to people smoking near me.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Tep

[Seastallion]

I don't know what the bigots think of Sikhs having dispensation to ride a motorbike without a helmet, but that "discrimination" affects nobody but the rider himself should he have an accident.

The Sikh/helmet dispensation is an example of where laws can accommodate for religious grounds. In a sense, the laws forbidding certain trading on Good Friday or Easter Sunday are a "discrimination" too.

It is only the anti-Muslim frenzy that is bringing the niqab issue to what it is. Really, it should be a non-issue. A man wearing a KKK costume is obviously either a radical bigot with clear white supremacist ambitions, or he's taking the p1$$. We know he's doing the latter. A man wearing a full burqa is either a weird cross dresser or taking the p1$$. We know he's doing the latter.

Calls for banning the niqab on the grounds that some sensationalist guy can't wear one are not well thought out and disregard that laws need to try to accommodate everybody, can't always, and there will be the odd imbalance. Better to err on the side of religious tolerance than on the side of narrow-mindedness.

[MJP]

I'm late into this one, but when I watched it on the news, I did have a quiet chuckle.

What I haven't seen anywhere on the thread was the image of the boys ...

Credit

Is that a motorcyclist nun on the right?

[notmyself]

I don't know what the bigots think of Sikhs having dispensation to ride a motorbike without a helmet, but that "discrimination" affects nobody but the rider himself should he have an accident.

The Sikh/helmet dispensation is an example of where laws can accommodate for religious grounds. In a sense, the laws forbidding certain trading on Good Friday or Easter Sunday are a "discrimination" too.

It is only the anti-Muslim frenzy that is bringing the niqab issue to what it is. Really, it should be a non-issue. A man wearing a KKK costume is obviously either a radical bigot with clear white supremacist ambitions, or he's taking the p1$$. We know he's doing the latter. A man wearing a full burqa is either a weird cross dresser or taking the p1$$. We know he's doing the latter.

Calls for banning the niqab on the grounds that some sensationalist guy can't wear one are not well thought out and disregard that laws need to try to accommodate everybody, can't always, and there will be the odd imbalance. Better to err on the side of religious tolerance than on the side of narrow-mindedness.

Good point about turbans though not applicable to the subject for the reason you yourself pointed out.

Of cause the three chaps are taking the p!ss but what they have done, with relative ease, is to highlight the actual issue rather than the factious issue. The veil is often used as a tool of subjugation... is it moral or ethical to allow this to happen? Because of PC correctness along with the free pass that religion gets it turns into a ban on wearing the veil but in actual fact it is the lifting of the ban on being able to show one's face in public. This is all too often spewed out as religious freedom but religious freedom is about the individual and only the individual. The religious freedom of an individual ends when it tries to impose that religious freedom on another individual.

[ozsamurai]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/25365218/burqa-ban-protest/?cmp=7n7

Edited October 29, 2014 by ozsamurai

[Seastallion]

I don't know what the bigots think of Sikhs having dispensation to ride a motorbike without a helmet, but that "discrimination" affects nobody but the rider himself should he have an accident.

The Sikh/helmet dispensation is an example of where laws can accommodate for religious grounds. In a sense, the laws forbidding certain trading on Good Friday or Easter Sunday are a "discrimination" too.

It is only the anti-Muslim frenzy that is bringing the niqab issue to what it is. Really, it should be a non-issue. A man wearing a KKK costume is obviously either a radical bigot with clear white supremacist ambitions, or he's taking the p1$$. We know he's doing the latter. A man wearing a full burqa is either a weird cross dresser or taking the p1$$. We know he's doing the latter.

Calls for banning the niqab on the grounds that some sensationalist guy can't wear one are not well thought out and disregard that laws need to try to accommodate everybody, can't always, and there will be the odd imbalance. Better to err on the side of religious tolerance than on the side of narrow-mindedness.

Good point about turbans though not applicable to the subject for the reason you yourself pointed out.

Of cause the three chaps are taking the p!ss but what they have done, with relative ease, is to highlight the actual issue rather than the factious issue. The veil is often used as a tool of subjugation... is it moral or ethical to allow this to happen? Because of PC correctness along with the free pass that religion gets it turns into a ban on wearing the veil but in actual fact it is the lifting of the ban on being able to show one's face in public. This is all too often spewed out as religious freedom but religious freedom is about the individual and only the individual. The religious freedom of an individual ends when it tries to impose that religious freedom on another individual.

I don't get why turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand. Dispensation is made on religious grounds, and reasonable people have no objection to this "discrimination". However people are objecting to this niqab issue on the grounds that it is discrimination.

As for the "tool of subjugation" point, the exact same argument was drummed into the public after 9/11 to garner support for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The exact same argument. It was hollow then, and it is hollow now.

I do would agree with your last sentence....I think. I think you meant to say something else. As it reads now, the imposer's religious freedoms end when he tries to impose his religion on another. That is not true but could be a punitive measure. If you were trying to say that it is not religious freedom to have religion imposed upon you, then I agree.

[nontabury]

[quote name="Tep"

Samran please don't accept any anti UKIP propaganda, until You've checked out the facts.

UKIP is not racialist,it is not anti-Muslim it is not even anti immigrant. It is a party that wants to control the UK boarder, restricting entry to those who would be of use to the UK, be they White,Black,Muslim or Christian. It's other main aim is of course to leave the very unpopular EU.

Why is there so much noise about UKIP on a thread about Australia muslim veil protest? In an effort to understand, I read the UKIP manifesto on their website. Clearly a result of an effective marketing company as well as stronger party whips to keep the looneys in line has resulted in a more marketable message than earlier manifestos comprising a lunatic fringe wish list. But elements of that still remain. The devolution message is appealing. More power to the people to control their affairs. Dangerously attractive. But the party that proposes to allow MP's more control over expenses welcomes MPs from other parties who have been guilty of expenses fraud. The party that talks about skills based immigration attracts a clown-car full of loud mouthed, scare-mongering nutters on racial issues.

I highly recommend that anyone researching UKIP and reading their policies read http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/29/10-good-reasons-not-vote-ukip-nigel-farage-europe beforehand. It provides essential guidance in reading between the carefully crafted, massaged messages of empowerment and 'freedom'. Messages that include bringing back smoking. Was there ever a party tailor made for angry old white men?

TEP, so you've read an article from a left wing newspaper that supports a political party

(Labour) that is seeing it's supporters move in their tens of thousand to UKIP. This now enables you to become the font of All knowledge regarding UKIP and also the aspirations of millions of UK voters from both the left and the right. "Amazing" and then you call others bigots, perhaps it's time for you to look in the mirror.

This thread is of course not about UKIP, but about an event that took place in Australia, therefore I think it' s only right that we discontinue to discuss UKIP on this thread. Allowing TEP

The time to realize what happens when reasonable people sink their head in the sand, read about the Rotherham child abuse sex candle.

In the meantime, in case you missed it, a photo of UKIP candidates.

[Tep]

TEP, so you've read an article from a left wing newspaper that supports a political party

(Labour) that is seeing it's supporters move in their tens of thousand to UKIP. This now enables you to become the font of All knowledge regarding UKIP and also the aspirations of millions of UK voters from both the left and the right. "Amazing" and then you call others bigots, perhaps it's time for you to look in the mirror.

This thread is of course not about UKIP, but about an event that took place in Australia, therefore I think it' s only right that we discontinue to discuss UKIP on this thread. Allowing TEP

The time to realize what happens when reasonable people sink their head in the sand, read about the Rotherham child abuse sex candle.

In the meantime, in case you missed it, a photo of UKIP candidates.ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect Thailand1414549544.700372.jpg

I was concerned over an issue. I did some research. I expressed an opinion. You call me a bigot.

Your ad hominem attack on the source changes nothing about the details that are reported. They speak for themselves and I encourage people who are similarly concerned about this insidiousness of this 'movement' to read this and other articles.

Unlike you, I do not object to people thinking for themselves. You have zero influence on what may nor may not be discussed on a particular thread nor on what individual posters should or should not do. I have read the threads you posted. A real wet dream for your type wasn't it.

The people who pulled the stunt at Parliament demonstrate the same mentality as the boosters of the UKIP. This is of significant concern to all Australians who believe in a progressive, multicultural nation. Clearly that is not you. Please continue to post your opinion. Refrain from telling me to do otherwise. We had quite enough of Brits trying to tell us what do do thank you.

[samran]

I don't know what the bigots think of Sikhs having dispensation to ride a motorbike without a helmet, but that "discrimination" affects nobody but the rider himself should he have an accident.

The Sikh/helmet dispensation is an example of where laws can accommodate for religious grounds. In a sense, the laws forbidding certain trading on Good Friday or Easter Sunday are a "discrimination" too.

It is only the anti-Muslim frenzy that is bringing the niqab issue to what it is. Really, it should be a non-issue. A man wearing a KKK costume is obviously either a radical bigot with clear white supremacist ambitions, or he's taking the p1$$. We know he's doing the latter. A man wearing a full burqa is either a weird cross dresser or taking the p1$$. We know he's doing the latter.

Calls for banning the niqab on the grounds that some sensationalist guy can't wear one are not well thought out and disregard that laws need to try to accommodate everybody, can't always, and there will be the odd imbalance. Better to err on the side of religious tolerance than on the side of narrow-mindedness.

Good point about turbans though not applicable to the subject for the reason you yourself pointed out.

Of cause the three chaps are taking the p!ss but what they have done, with relative ease, is to highlight the actual issue rather than the factious issue. The veil is often used as a tool of subjugation... is it moral or ethical to allow this to happen? Because of PC correctness along with the free pass that religion gets it turns into a ban on wearing the veil but in actual fact it is the lifting of the ban on being able to show one's face in public. This is all too often spewed out as religious freedom but religious freedom is about the individual and only the individual. The religious freedom of an individual ends when it tries to impose that religious freedom on another individual.

I don't get why turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand.

Keep up. It's not applicable because they aren't muslims? You know, the bigots whipping boy d'jour.

If muslims happened to wear turbans then the bigots would be complaining that their helmet dispensation would be an affront to Rastafarians who liked to wear their hair up.

[harrry]

I don't know what the bigots think of Sikhs having dispensation to ride a motorbike without a helmet, but that "discrimination" affects nobody but the rider himself should he have an accident.

The Sikh/helmet dispensation is an example of where laws can accommodate for religious grounds. In a sense, the laws forbidding certain trading on Good Friday or Easter Sunday are a "discrimination" too.

It is only the anti-Muslim frenzy that is bringing the niqab issue to what it is. Really, it should be a non-issue. A man wearing a KKK costume is obviously either a radical bigot with clear white supremacist ambitions, or he's taking the p1$$. We know he's doing the latter. A man wearing a full burqa is either a weird cross dresser or taking the p1$$. We know he's doing the latter.

Calls for banning the niqab on the grounds that some sensationalist guy can't wear one are not well thought out and disregard that laws need to try to accommodate everybody, can't always, and there will be the odd imbalance. Better to err on the side of religious tolerance than on the side of narrow-mindedness.

Good point about turbans though not applicable to the subject for the reason you yourself pointed out.

Of cause the three chaps are taking the p!ss but what they have done, with relative ease, is to highlight the actual issue rather than the factious issue. The veil is often used as a tool of subjugation... is it moral or ethical to allow this to happen? Because of PC correctness along with the free pass that religion gets it turns into a ban on wearing the veil but in actual fact it is the lifting of the ban on being able to show one's face in public. This is all too often spewed out as religious freedom but religious freedom is about the individual and only the individual. The religious freedom of an individual ends when it tries to impose that religious freedom on another individual.

I don't get why turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand.

Keep up. It's not applicable because they aren't muslims? You know, the bigots whipping boy d'jour.

If muslims happened to wear turbans then the bigots would be complaining that their helmet dispensation would be an affront to Rastafarians who liked to wear their hair up.

I would strongly object to any sihk tried to bring a kirpan into any building I was in. I would want their turban removed too to check their hairpin was not usable as a weapon as some have been in the past,.

Edited October 29, 2014 by harrry

[Seastallion]

Of cause the three chaps are taking the p!ss but what they have done, with relative ease, is to highlight the actual issue rather than the factious issue. The veil is often used as a tool of subjugation... is it moral or ethical to allow this to happen? Because of PC correctness along with the free pass that religion gets it turns into a ban on wearing the veil but in actual fact it is the lifting of the ban on being able to show one's face in public. This is all too often spewed out as religious freedom but religious freedom is about the individual and only the individual. The religious freedom of an individual ends when it tries to impose that religious freedom on another individual.

I don't get why turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand.

Keep up. It's not applicable because they aren't muslims? You know, the bigots whipping boy d'jour.

If muslims happened to wear turbans then the bigots would be complaining that their helmet dispensation would be an affront to Rastafarians who liked to wear their hair up.

I would strongly object to any sihk tried to bring a kirpan into any building I was in. I would want their turban removed too to check their hairpin was not usable as a weapon as some have been in the past,.

I'm almost speechless! Why would you object??!!??? Do you have reason to believe any Sikh wants to injure you? Why should Sikh hairpins be confiscated and not women's?

Any building???!!?? So, a department store with knives on display for anybody to browse.....but only Sikhs with hairpins should be restricted?

Can you begin to see how ridiculous your position is, (not to mention xenophobic)?

[nontabury]

TEP, so you've read an article from a left wing newspaper that supports a political party

(Labour) that is seeing it's supporters move in their tens of thousand to UKIP. This now enables you to become the font of All knowledge regarding UKIP and also the aspirations of millions of UK voters from both the left and the right. "Amazing" and then you call others bigots, perhaps it's time for you to look in the mirror.

This thread is of course not about UKIP, but about an event that took place in Australia, therefore I think it' s only right that we discontinue to discuss UKIP on this thread. Allowing TEP

The time to realize what happens when reasonable people sink their head in the sand, read about the Rotherham child abuse sex candle.

In the meantime, in case you missed it, a photo of UKIP candidates.ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect Thailand1414549544.700372.jpg

I was concerned over an issue. I did some research. I expressed an opinion. You call me a bigot.

Your ad hominem attack on the source changes nothing about the details that are reported. They speak for themselves and I encourage people who are similarly concerned about this insidiousness of this 'movement' to read this and other articles.

Unlike you, I do not object to people thinking for themselves. You have zero influence on what may nor may not be discussed on a particular thread nor on what individual posters should or should not do. I have read the threads you posted. A real wet dream for your type wasn't it.

The people who pulled the stunt at Parliament demonstrate the same mentality as the boosters of the UKIP. This is of significant concern to all Australians who believe in a progressive, multicultural nation. Clearly that is not you. Please continue to post your opinion. Refrain from telling me to do otherwise. We had quite enough of Brits trying to tell us what do do thank you.

Where have I objected to people thinking for themselves?

I do apologies for making a point regarding an event in Australia, I din't realize us Brits were prohibited from doing so by TV rules.

Have you looked up the events in Rotherham yet, just shows what can happen when people stick their heads in the sand.

[Tep]

TEP, so you've read an article from a left wing newspaper that supports a political party

(Labour) that is seeing it's supporters move in their tens of thousand to UKIP. This now enables you to become the font of All knowledge regarding UKIP and also the aspirations of millions of UK voters from both the left and the right. "Amazing" and then you call others bigots, perhaps it's time for you to look in the mirror.

This thread is of course not about UKIP, but about an event that took place in Australia, therefore I think it' s only right that we discontinue to discuss UKIP on this thread. Allowing TEP

The time to realize what happens when reasonable people sink their head in the sand, read about the Rotherham child abuse sex candle.

In the meantime, in case you missed it, a photo of UKIP candidates.ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect Thailand1414549544.700372.jpg

I was concerned over an issue. I did some research. I expressed an opinion. You call me a bigot.

Your ad hominem attack on the source changes nothing about the details that are reported. They speak for themselves and I encourage people who are similarly concerned about this insidiousness of this 'movement' to read this and other articles.

Unlike you, I do not object to people thinking for themselves. You have zero influence on what may nor may not be discussed on a particular thread nor on what individual posters should or should not do. I have read the threads you posted. A real wet dream for your type wasn't it.

The people who pulled the stunt at Parliament demonstrate the same mentality as the boosters of the UKIP. This is of significant concern to all Australians who believe in a progressive, multicultural nation. Clearly that is not you. Please continue to post your opinion. Refrain from telling me to do otherwise. We had quite enough of Brits trying to tell us what do do thank you.

Where have I objected to people thinking for themselves?

I do apologies for making a point regarding an event in Australia, I din't realize us Brits were prohibited from doing so by TV rules.

Have you looked up the events in Rotherham yet, just shows what can happen when people stick their heads in the sand.

Very well. Since you asked. You attempt to trivialise and make snide remarks about my research on the issue of UKIP. You use phrases and expressions that intimate that my views are not my own and are superficial. My posting indicated that my research included the UKIP website but you do not acknowledge this. You do not know how widely or deeply I researched the issue.

Who is preventing you from making comments about Australia? I specifically indicated that I welcome you to continue posting your opinions. However, you did not make comments about Australia or on the issue at hand. You directed that I stop talking about UKIP and do some naval gazing presumable to reflect on the error of my ways. I do not require such instruction thank you.

I will not discuss the topic of Rotherham. I am disgusted at the gleefulness of certain people at using this event to show their bigotry and racism. That you would direct me to that topic is highly offensive. Your delight in using this occurrence to promote your agenda is objectionable. It confirms what I read in the Guardian article and numerous other sources about the type of people attracted to UKIP.

We have not exchanged views on any issue to date. I am happy to respond to issues when raised in serious and meaningful ways. I have said this to other posters who choose not to have a discussion but just hurl slings and arrows. So I respond in kind until the posts get deleted. They do not use serious or meaningful words. They use trigger words and slurs that get ever more hyperbolic as each increasingly demeaning term loses effectiveness from overuse.

I believe UKIP portends serious retrograde steps for the UK, which is actually my culture also. I see the influence of this type of party on Australia. This concerns me. The 20th Century's most grand and noble experiment to counter two murderous and bloody conflicts, the EU, being rubbished by low brow chauvinists who are out for the main chance. There will be serious economic consequences for the UK if UKIP's anti EU policies are implemented. For Australia, the experience with One Nation imperilled Australian interests in Asia. The anti-immigrant, religiously inspired hatred still does. We cut the apron strings with Britain long ago but still haven't established our place in Asia. So just like the UK has to deal with its place in the EU, we have to do the same regionally. I am happy to discuss these issues. Or I am happy to have a slagging match until one or both of us are suspended. I leave that choice to you.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Tep