KKK outfit worn in Australia Muslim veil protest

[JockPieandBeans]

A few misconceptions on this thread,

@ TEP

Why is there so much noise about UKIP on a thread about Australia muslim veil protest?

Ask samran, he is the one that brought up UKIP at #86 and slightly before.

http://news.sky.com/story/1361710/ukip-hits-new-poll-high-after-1-7bn-eu-bill

A political party that is barely 20 years old but are now putting a proverbial rocket up the backsides of the 2 major political parties.

How could that be ????

Quite simple. the general population have had enough BS and now they want change.

It is somewhat amusing to see the about turns that the 2 major parties are committing due to the rising popularity of UKIP. Amazing what the thought of picking up your P45 will do for someone's beliefs.

@ seastallion

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

Turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand purely on the basis that turbans are not a face covering. The general argument is that face coverings have no place in a modern society, regardless of what religion, creed or colour wants to adorn them.

[Tep]

A few misconceptions on this thread,

@ TEP

Why is there so much noise about UKIP on a thread about Australia muslim veil protest?

Ask samran, he is the one that brought up UKIP at #86 and slightly before.

http://news.sky.com/story/1361710/ukip-hits-new-poll-high-after-1-7bn-eu-bill

A political party that is barely 20 years old but are now putting a proverbial rocket up the backsides of the 2 major political parties.

How could that be ????

Quite simple. the general population have had enough BS and now they want change.

It is somewhat amusing to see the about turns that the 2 major parties are committing due to the rising popularity of UKIP. Amazing what the thought of picking up your P45 will do for someone's beliefs.

@ seastallion

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

Turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand purely on the basis that turbans are not a face covering. The general argument is that face coverings have no place in a modern society, regardless of what religion, creed or colour wants to adorn them.

One Nation had similar momentum and then the leader opened her mouth. After that, the Party Secretary was found looting the treasury. After that, they collapsed.

Nothing unusual about a populist party having momentum and creating turmoil among the establishment. Some canny moves seem to have been made in terms of polishing manifesto statements although some of the loony bits remain and from reports, a more active set of Whips to keep the more nutty members from embarrassing the movement too much. But all that pales in the face of UKIP being a one man band. There is no depth. There are real possibilities that the leader's feet of clay will collapse but even if he does not self destruct, what happens when real-politik steps in? what happens when he attains power and has to make political compromise? What happens when the party platform cannot be delivered to the extent promised because of real life? The lustre fades and who stands behind him? Convicted criminals and lunatics.

[JockPieandBeans]

But all that pales in the face of UKIP being a one man band. There is no depth. There are real possibilities that the leader's feet of clay will collapse but even if he does not self destruct, what happens when real-politik steps in? what happens when he attains power and has to make political compromise? What happens when the party platform cannot be delivered to the extent promised because of real life? The lustre fades and who stands behind him? Convicted criminals and lunatics.

Nice to see that you are able to describe to a T, every Political Part in the UK.

But the thread is about Australia, and whether a face covering has any place in a civilised society.

it is my contention, with the historical use of face coverings, that they have no place in a modern civilised society.

Edited October 29, 2014 by JockPieandBeans

[Tep]

But all that pales in the face of UKIP being a one man band. There is no depth. There are real possibilities that the leader's feet of clay will collapse but even if he does not self destruct, what happens when real-politik steps in? what happens when he attains power and has to make political compromise? What happens when the party platform cannot be delivered to the extent promised because of real life? The lustre fades and who stands behind him? Convicted criminals and lunatics.

Nice to see that you are able to describe to a T, every Political Part in the UK.

But the thread is about Australia, and whether a face covering has any place in a civilised society.

it is my contention, with the historical use of face coverings, that they have no place in a modern civilised society.

The link between UKIP and the topic of this thread is well established, valid and not yet exhausted. You select a portion of my post that excludes my reference to One Nation. Since you are not Australian it could be understood if you do not recognise the significance of that reference. Here is another one http://ausfirst.alphalink.com.au/leafletpolicies.htm The Australia First Party. Reading their policies is very much like reading UKIP's policies.

Who are those twits at Parliament playing to if not the sort of people that Australia First wants? This is a legitimate concern to progressive Australians.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Tep

[JemJem]

I just wonder what percentage of women who are covered (be it a headscarf or burqa or anything in between) do so because of their own choice ! I feel that the majority do it out of husband/brother/family/neighborhood/society pressure/threats.

It is just appalling that a religion which claims to be peaceful sees women as second-class and causes their oppression.

[JockPieandBeans]

But all that pales in the face of UKIP being a one man band. There is no depth. There are real possibilities that the leader's feet of clay will collapse but even if he does not self destruct, what happens when real-politik steps in? what happens when he attains power and has to make political compromise? What happens when the party platform cannot be delivered to the extent promised because of real life? The lustre fades and who stands behind him? Convicted criminals and lunatics.

Nice to see that you are able to describe to a T, every Political Part in the UK.

But the thread is about Australia, and whether a face covering has any place in a civilised society.

it is my contention, with the historical use of face coverings, that they have no place in a modern civilised society.

The link between UKIP and the topic of this thread is well established, valid and not yet exhausted. You select a portion of my post that excludes my reference to One Nation. Since you are not Australian it could be understood if you do not recognise the significance of that reference. Here is another one http://ausfirst.alphalink.com.au/leafletpolicies.htm The Australia First Party. Reading their policies is very much like reading UKIP's policies.

Who are those twits at Parliament playing to if not the sort of people that Australia First wants? This is a legitimate concern to progressive Australians.

I highlighted that part of your post, not because it was about UKIP, but because, you described ALL UK Political Parties within the text.

I also highlighted and provided links to show that the twits of UKIP, who are on a par with One Nation, are growing in strength and popularity on a daily basis, certainly in the UK. I do not need to go into greater detail, the reasons are obvious even to a blind man.

The only concern that the Aus Government should have at the moment, is to ensure that it does NOT follow the immigration model of the UK. As I pointed out, the 2 main Parties are now falling over themselves with the mind numbing amount of U turns that they are carrying out. Why ? Quite simply because UKIP are now voicing what the UK public have been castigated for over the last 20 years.

It is also very evident, that you declined to comment on the actual thrust of my post. Which was, in my opinion, that face coverings, of any description, have no place in a modern civilised Country.

[Seastallion]

A few misconceptions on this thread,

@ seastallion

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

Turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand purely on the basis that turbans are not a face covering. The general argument is that face coverings have no place in a modern society, regardless of what religion, creed or colour wants to adorn them.

The dispensation for turbans is very relevant because the KKK idiot (and some of his supporters here) are claiming discrimination.

Are you sure that you want all laws to always ensure no discrimination? That all laws can not allow dispensation for some reason or another?

Think about that for a while. And think about it in the context of all society, not just your own preferences.

[neverdie]

Australia is a sad joke.

[Seastallion]

........the actual thrust of my post. Which was, in my opinion, that face coverings, of any description, have no place in a modern civilised Country.

Why? What is the rationale for saying that?

(Please consider the meaning of the word "rationale" before replying).

[JockPieandBeans]

........the actual thrust of my post. Which was, in my opinion, that face coverings, of any description, have no place in a modern civilised Country.

Why? What is the rationale for saying that?

(Please consider the meaning of the word "rationale" before replying).

What is your rationale for saying that any face covering has a place in a modern, civilised Country.

And before you ask me, I am not defending any of these 3 individuals that carried out this stunt.

Neither is it a jab at muslims.

It is merely my opinion that face coverings of ANY description has no place in a modern, civilised society.

[H1w4yR1da]

A few misconceptions on this thread,

@ seastallion

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

Turbans are not applicable to the subject at hand purely on the basis that turbans are not a face covering. The general argument is that face coverings have no place in a modern society, regardless of what religion, creed or colour wants to adorn them.

The dispensation for turbans is very relevant because the KKK idiot (and some of his supporters here) are claiming discrimination.

Are you sure that you want all laws to always ensure no discrimination? That all laws can not allow dispensation for some reason or another?

Think about that for a while. And think about it in the context of all society, not just your own preferences.

No, turbans are not relevant. Theyre head coverings, not face coverings. Turban wearers can still be identified, unlike those in Islamic full-face coverings. It's not rocket science, pal!

And its obvious to even the most race-baiting leftie that the guy was using KKK garb as a prop to make a point.

That's all.

Yes, it would have been more socially appropriate to have chosen another item but it got the point across AND infuriated the liberals at the same time. 2 for 1.

[Seastallion]

........the actual thrust of my post. Which was, in my opinion, that face coverings, of any description, have no place in a modern civilised Country.

Why? What is the rationale for saying that?

(Please consider the meaning of the word "rationale" before replying).

What is your rationale for saying that any face covering has a place in a modern, civilised Country.

And before you ask me, I am not defending any of these 3 individuals that carried out this stunt.

Neither is it a jab at muslims.

It is merely my opinion that face coverings of ANY description has no place in a modern, civilised society.

Lol, answer a question with a question...never mind, I'll play along. It's obvious that you have no rational reason for thinking that face coverings have no place in modern civilised society. Of course your opinion is your own...a shame that you have no reason for the opinion.

I have no rationale to defend "any sort of face covering", but then, I can provide no rationale for any religious accoutrements. It's the fact that the niqab/veil/burqa is a religious thing that I defend in the sense that I defend freedom of religion.

[notmyself]

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.

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.

Specifically "affects nobody but the rider himself". If someone believes themselves to be a chicken sandwich then they are free to do so. However, if that person's belief impacts on someone else's life then it is overstepping the mark. Belief is an individual right and not the right to tell others what to do and this is the entire crux of the matter.

[Seastallion]

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.

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.

Specifically "affects nobody but the rider himself". If someone believes themselves to be a chicken sandwich then they are free to do so. However, if that person's belief impacts on someone else's life then it is overstepping the mark. Belief is an individual right and not the right to tell others what to do and this is the entire crux of the matter.

Ok, I agree...but I take it that you're still going on about the veil being a tool of subjugation?

Firstly, that's not what the thread is about. It's about the alleged unfairness that the KKK idiot can't wear what he wants but a Muslim woman can. I think I've made my point about that, so to the alleged subjugation.

Really? As I said, this was alleged just after 9/11 and was propaganda to gain support for invading Afghanistan. Get the female vote etc. Other than that and a few slanted feminist pieces, I have not come across any reliable information to even suggest that Muslim women resent their attire. To the contrary, I have read articles written by Muslim women that they wear it with pride and out of choice....even knowing that it is not compulsory.

[Tep]

It is also very evident, that you declined to comment on the actual thrust of my post. Which was, in my opinion, that face coverings, of any description, have no place in a modern civilised Country.

Why am I required to comment? I have commented on a number of aspects of that issue in other posts. You have what right to demand that I comment on anything you or anyone else says?

I made a serious comment on an issue that was of concern to me at the time. I provided a rationale for linking that comment with the topic of this thread. Yet you believe that you may goad and deride my comment and me because of something I did not say. You are not a respectful interlocutor. So be it.

[notmyself]

Ok, I agree...but I take it that you're still going on about the veil being a tool of subjugation?

Firstly, that's not what the thread is about. It's about the alleged unfairness that the KKK idiot can't wear what he wants but a Muslim woman can. I think I've made my point about that, so to the alleged subjugation.

Really? As I said, this was alleged just after 9/11 and was propaganda to gain support for invading Afghanistan. Get the female vote etc. Other than that and a few slanted feminist pieces, I have not come across any reliable information to even suggest that Muslim women resent their attire. To the contrary, I have read articles written by Muslim women that they wear it with pride and out of choice....even knowing that it is not compulsory.

The KKK issue is a ruse to highlight an issue that would otherwise not be talked about.

All we ever hear about is regarding banning the burka because that is as far as governments and news outlets are willing to go. It's a concerted effort to deflect the real issue because they are too scared to deal with it lest they cause offense. A prime example of this in from UK. Psychics, mediums etc. were coining it in by conning the old and vulnerable out of their money. Legalisation was drawn up by parliament that would have affected some religious institutions but was significantly watered down by then PM (still at that time a closet Catholic) Tony Blair. He openly admitted that either the legalisation had to be watered down to the point where it would not impact religious institutions or that religious institutions had to be given an exemption from the law which would have not gone down well with the electorate. Albeit on a different theme, the same this is presently happening in Australia. Rather than deal with an issue even-handedly they get people (by slight of hand) to address something on the fringe or rather address an symptom rather than the cause. When you are sitting on a hot piece of metal the idea is to get up rather than take pain killers which is what the UK and Australia are suggesting.

As for attire... I'll have a look around later to find some articles on it because it is not as cut and dry as you think. I can offer one example straight off the bat but it is worthless in reality. I have a friend in Tehran who comes over to Thailand from time to time with her husband and young son. When the plane (Air Iran) leaves Iranian airspace there is an announcement from the crew that they have done so and most of the female passengers take off their headscarves. This is just headscarves rather than a full face covering mate.

[Tep]

Specifically "affects nobody but the rider himself". If someone believes themselves to be a chicken sandwich then they are free to do so. However, if that person's belief impacts on someone else's life then it is overstepping the mark. Belief is an individual right and not the right to tell others what to do and this is the entire crux of the matter.

I think you are asking the wrong people. If you want to understand the meaning of some face or head covering, maybe it is best to ask the person who believes in that. Their answer may be irrational because it will be based on belief, which is irrational. Their answer may not be acceptable to you based on your culture and upbringing. It is certainly not acceptable to me and makes me uncomfortable but I do not believe that that practice infringes on any of my rights, so I do not believe that I have cause to protest this or request legislation against it.

I don't think 'they' - the face covering wearers - are telling you what to do. They are not telling you to wear the stuff. They are telling you to let them wear it, which is not the same thing and which is probably the thing you (and I) object to. But I do not believe that my rights are infringed because of that practice.

I have said before that I think Australia will change Muslim immigrants for the better. I believe that this change may include some of these practices regarding costume. The will see other Asian Muslims being far less rigid about these things. I think that persuasion, education, respectful engagement will achieve results. The children of these people under discussion will likely reject that practice. Dealing with that and coping with that generation may make some people less rigid in their stance. Who knows.

When I am told to start adopting these practices, then I will become vocal. Until then, I cannot see how my rights are infringed irrespective of how much I do not like the practice and thoroughly agree with the arguments about paternalism, medievalism and the rest.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Tep

[JockPieandBeans]

........the actual thrust of my post. Which was, in my opinion, that face coverings, of any description, have no place in a modern civilised Country.

Why? What is the rationale for saying that?

(Please consider the meaning of the word "rationale" before replying).

What is your rationale for saying that any face covering has a place in a modern, civilised Country.

And before you ask me, I am not defending any of these 3 individuals that carried out this stunt.

Neither is it a jab at muslims.

It is merely my opinion that face coverings of ANY description has no place in a modern, civilised society.

Lol, answer a question with a question...never mind, I'll play along. It's obvious that you have no rational reason for thinking that face coverings have no place in modern civilised society. Of course your opinion is your own...a shame that you have no reason for the opinion.

I have no rationale to defend "any sort of face covering", but then, I can provide no rationale for any religious accoutrements. It's the fact that the niqab/veil/burqa is a religious thing that I defend in the sense that I defend freedom of religion.

Do I need a rational reason for not wanting people walking about the streets with their faces covered. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that it poses identification problems. There does not need to be any other reason.

Sorry, but I have heard enough people shouting that the niqab/veil/burqa is NOT a religious accoutriment, but that it is worn for there own personal reasons. So what is it ? Is it a religious requirement ? Or is it just a tool, to be used depending on your argument ?

People need to make up their minds, either it is a religious garment or it is not. It cannot be both. And it certainly cannot be one or the other whenever it is needed to suit a particular argument.

And I will point out yet again. I objected to ANY face coverings and not face coverings that are specific to Muslims.

[nontabury]

[quote name="Tep" post

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.

.

I am not prepared to deal with all of your ignorant rant, however I do take a very serious objection to you stating the gleefulness of people using this event to show their bigotry and racism.

This terrible event relates to the racialist actions of Some Muslim men in Rotherham, not all but some. However the Muslim community as a whole have been very quite about these animals, preferring to close ranks. One exception being Muhbeen Hussain the founder of British Muslim Youth who just happens to be from Rotherham, not only did he condemn these animals but he also questioned the NONE actions of the police and the local Labour Party, who where too afraid to go public with the information that they had been aware of for More than 10yrs. Why were they afraid, because they knew that anybody criticising certain groups, would be labeled Racist, ring any bells TEP.

Who brought it to the publics attention, a reporter from the Times, NOT a reporter from the Labour supporting Guardian, who were also aware of these child abuses, that were taking place not only in Rotherham but also in many other towns such as Oxford, Rochdale and others.

So what has this to do with the events in Australia, perhaps it's because anybody who criticizes the actions of any Muslims is stigmatized with the word racist, do you see a pattern here TEP.

Similar to the 1930's when people who warned of the evil of the Nazies were branded war mongrels, Winston Churchill being just one, people wanted peace at any cost and so buried their heads in the sand, preferring to listen to appeasers such as the paper waving Nevilli Chamberlain, result millions died.

So that's my rant over,just to add that I lived and worked in Rotherham for many years,( still have family and friends there) before I came to Thailand, where I now live in a Muslim village were I willingly accept their customs and find the locals very decent people.

[notmyself]

Specifically "affects nobody but the rider himself". If someone believes themselves to be a chicken sandwich then they are free to do so. However, if that person's belief impacts on someone else's life then it is overstepping the mark. Belief is an individual right and not the right to tell others what to do and this is the entire crux of the matter.

I think you are asking the wrong people. If you want to understand the meaning of some face or head covering, maybe it is best to ask the person who believes in that. Their answer may be irrational because it will be based on belief, which is irrational. Their answer may not be acceptable to you based on your culture and upbringing. It is certainly not acceptable to me and makes me uncomfortable but I do not believe that that practice infringes on any of my rights, so I do not believe that I have cause to protest this or request legislation against it.

I don't think 'they' - the face covering wearers - are telling you what to do. They are not telling you to wear the stuff. They are telling you to let them wear it, which is not the same thing and which is probably the thing you (and I) object to. But I do not believe that my rights are infringed because of that practice.

I have said before that I think Australia will change Muslim immigrants for the better. I believe that this change may include some of these practices regarding costume. The will see other Asian Muslims being far less rigid about these things. I think that persuasion, education, respectful engagement will achieve results. The children of these people under discussion will likely reject that practice. Dealing with that and coping with that generation may make some people less rigid in their stance. Who knows.

When I am told to start adopting these practices, then I will become vocal. Until then, I cannot see how my rights are infringed irrespective of how much I do not like the practice and thoroughly agree with the arguments about paternalism, medievalism and the rest.

So if some fella is beating up on his wife then you should do nothing because it doesn't affect you personally.

{Edit]

Ah, I get your point... No women at all are forced to wear the veil?

[Tep]

I am not prepared to deal with all of your ignorant rant, however I do take a very serious objection to you stating the gleefulness of people using this event to show their bigotry and racism.

Then don't. I will not discuss the issue of Rotherham with someone like you. I will not discuss it on an unrelated thread. It is worthy of discussion. But I will not engage on that issue with you.

[Tep]

So if some fella is beating up on his wife then you should do nothing because it doesn't affect you personally.

{Edit]

Ah, I get your point... No women at all are forced to wear the veil?

I actually experienced this growing up as a teenager sitting outside a store with a mate one evening. A shocking, violent attack by some guy on his girlfriend. I wanted to get out of the car, but my mate stopped me. I would have been beaten to death by the thug probably.

That anecdote aside, I don't see how it is relevant to the face covering issue. We are not being told to wear the stuff, we are being told to let them wear it. So I still can't see my rights being infringed. My sensitivities are of course infringed but I don't think my rights are.

On women being forced to wear the stuff, that's another issue. I would say many are forced either by cultural imperatives (so the iranian ladies takeoff their sovereigns when planes leave airspace) or by direct threats by male family members etc. But I would ask, are white men the best group of people to make this a casus belli. I think it makes us look ridiculous. Particularly when many of these guys are misogynistic old goats who couldn't give a fig about women's rights. You know the sort. Called liberationists 'bra burners' in the 60's, slagged off advocates for women's reproductive rights in the US as lesbians and sluts. So you have a point but I would prefer it to be made by a muslim woman.

You think the guy wearing the KKK costume had any sophisticated level of thinking about this issue. Like I said, it has become a casus belli for a much darker, insidious and altogether dangerous agenda.

[samran]

Funny how people want to tell women how to live their lives and do with their own bodies.

[notmyself]

I don't see how it is relevant to the face covering issue. We are not being told to wear the stuff, we are being told to let them wear it. So I still can't see my rights being infringed. My sensitivities are of course infringed but I don't think my rights are.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm%20all%20right%20Jack!

On women being forced to wear the stuff, that's another issue.

No, that is entirely the issue.

You think the guy wearing the KKK costume had any sophisticated level of thinking about this issue. Like I said, it has become a casus belli for a much darker, insidious and altogether dangerous agenda.

Sophisticated enough to be able to raise an issue nobody wants to talk about. Doff my cap to the fella.

Edited October 29, 2014 by notmyself

[samran]

I don't see how it is relevant to the face covering issue. We are not being told to wear the stuff, we are being told to let them wear it. So I still can't see my rights being infringed. My sensitivities are of course infringed but I don't think my rights are.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm%20all%20right%20Jack!

On women being forced to wear the stuff, that's another issue.

No, that is entirely the issue.

You think the guy wearing the KKK costume had any sophisticated level of thinking about this issue. Like I said, it has become a casus belli for a much darker, insidious and altogether dangerous agenda.

Sophisticated enough to be able to raise an issue nobody wants to talk about. Doff my cap to the fella.

It was an issue which was front page news, debated by the president of the senate, the speaker of the house, and the prime minister. Tv news as far as they eye can see.

These blokes weren't being sophisticated. This issue has been raise higher than Jesus Christ himself. They were being devisive.

Edited October 29, 2014 by samran

[notmyself]

Funny how people want to tell women how to live their lives and do with their own bodies.

Not funny at all.

No Sir, you may not be allowed to demand an individual cover her face based on you own personally held beliefs. You are free to believe what you wish but you cannot impose your personally held beliefs on ANY other individual.... Is that clear.

[samran]

Funny how people want to tell women how to live their lives and do with their own bodies.

Not funny at all.

No Sir, you may not be allowed to demand an individual cover her face based on you own personally held beliefs. You are free to believe what you wish but you cannot impose your personally held beliefs on ANY other individual.... Is that clear.

So what right does that give you then to tell a woman not to wear a face covering?

Are all women blithering idiots that they need the men of Thai visa forum telling them how to dress now?

Edited October 29, 2014 by samran

[notmyself]

Funny how people want to tell women how to live their lives and do with their own bodies.

Not funny at all.

No Sir, you may not be allowed to demand an individual cover her face based on you own personally held beliefs. You are free to believe what you wish but you cannot impose your personally held beliefs on ANY other individual.... Is that clear.

So what right does that give you then to tell a woman not to wear a face covering?

Are all women blithering idiots that they need the men of Thai visa forum telling them how to dress now?

Sorry, very poor wording on my part.

State, civilization, ethics and morality: No Sir, you may not be allowed to demand an individual cover her face based on you own personally held beliefs. You are free to believe what you wish but you cannot impose your personally held beliefs on ANY other individual.... Is that clear.

I have a feeling that you consider it a personal infringement on your liberty to not be able to own another human being.

[samran]

Funny how people want to tell women how to live their lives and do with their own bodies.

Not funny at all.

No Sir, you may not be allowed to demand an individual cover her face based on you own personally held beliefs. You are free to believe what you wish but you cannot impose your personally held beliefs on ANY other individual.... Is that clear.

So what right does that give you then to tell a woman not to wear a face covering?

Are all women blithering idiots that they need the men of Thai visa forum telling them how to dress now?

Sorry, very poor wording on my part.

State, civilization, ethics and morality: No Sir, you may not be allowed to demand an individual cover her face based on you own personally held beliefs. You are free to believe what you wish but you cannot impose your personally held beliefs on ANY other individual.... Is that clear.

I have a feeling that you consider it a personal infringement on your liberty to not be able to own another human being.

How do you reach that offensive conclusion?

In a free democratic country like Australia, where freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution, and freedom of expression is pretty much guaranteed (we got rid of morality laws back in the 50s and 60s) and we don't criminalise people for being who they are, how is it then do we get away telling a woman what they can or can not wear??

I certainly have no say in how a woman dresses. Not my right to.

If she wants to wear a bikini down the road, fine. If she wants to cover her face, fine too. I'm not going to tell her how to dress. Clearly you want to though.

Clearly you have some ideas though that women should be forced to dress a certain way (ie never wear a face covering) even if it is against their will.

Edited October 29, 2014 by samran

[Tep]

I don't see how it is relevant to the face covering issue. We are not being told to wear the stuff, we are being told to let them wear it. So I still can't see my rights being infringed. My sensitivities are of course infringed but I don't think my rights are.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I'm%20all%20right%20Jack!

On women being forced to wear the stuff, that's another issue.

No, that is entirely the issue.

You think the guy wearing the KKK costume had any sophisticated level of thinking about this issue. Like I said, it has become a casus belli for a much darker, insidious and altogether dangerous agenda.

Sophisticated enough to be able to raise an issue nobody wants to talk about. Doff my cap to the fella.

Your link to Urban Dictionary didn't work for me so I don't quite know what you are trying to tell me on that issue.

On your 2nd point, shall we go back and forth with me saying no it isn't and you saying yes it is? I thought the issue was those twits at Parliament wanted to be able to wear face covering because muslim women were allowed to wear face covering. On the broader issue of face coverings, yes, you are correct, the issue of being forced to wear the covering is an issue but I make the observation that the Parliament protestor twits would not have been making any sophisticated protest on this issue. Just stirring up the crowd with a simplistic argument of "they are allowed this privilege so we must be allowed it also". In any case, if your issue is the improper and demeaning requirement by a culture for women to wear certain costumes, then fine. I already made a comment on m views on that score.

Finally, it will not surprise you to know that I do not agree with your nod to the protestors. Again, what is the issue nobody was talking about? The Parliamentary regulation? The abuse of women in Muslim counties? The fact that a lot of these people want to come to Australia and make life uncomfortable for the immigrants who arrived there earlier?