Burqa ban bill introduced in NSW

Christian Democratic Party MP Fred Nile has succeeded in introducing a bill to ban the wearing of the burqa in the NSW Upper House.

Mr Nile introduced his private member's bill, seeking to ban the wearing of the burqa and other face veils in public, shortly after 8pm yesterday.

Last month, a debate on the same bill was voted down by the NSW Upper House.

Greens MP John Kaye said only the four Greens MPs and Family First MP Gordon Moyes voted against introducing the bill on Tuesday.




So do you oppose women having a choice on the clothes they wear?

And do Federal Labor and Liberal Parties support their State Party's position of opposing women's rights?

Notwithstanding that I prefer your title, Greens...the debate is already underway here: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1277162118/27#27

'Re: Ban the Burqa'

____ wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 10:27am:

Burqa ban bill introduced in NSW Christian Democratic Party MP Fred Nile has succeeded in introducing a bill to ban the wearing of the burqa in the NSW Upper House. Mr Nile introduced his private member's bill, seeking to ban the wearing of the burqa and other face veils in public, shortly after 8pm yesterday. Last month, a debate on the same bill was voted down by the NSW Upper House. Greens MP John Kaye said only the four Greens MPs and Family First MP Gordon Moyes voted against introducing the bill on Tuesday. So do you oppose women having a choice on the clothes they wear? And do Federal Labor and Liberal Parties support their State Party's position of opposing women's rights?

Interesting, I'm sure the hard right that run the Liberal party these days will agree with Nile, so that counts Abbott in.
On the Labor side I'd say most would be against the bill, it wont pass, Nile is as irrelevant as Abbott.

I vote for banning the burqua.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 10:47am:

I vote for banning the burqua.

I believe in everybody's right to practice their fictitious religions( lets face it all religion is bulls hit) BUT I think there should be some restrictions in certain places.
lets face it you have to remove your motorbike helmet if you enter a bank, you should have to remove anything that covers your face if you enter a bank,burqua included. but as far as walking down the road with one on, it doesn't bother me, Muslim women aren't the best lookers anyway so i think they're doing us a favour by covering up.

Nile is following the cosmopolitan European example set by the Catalans, Belgians, French and Swiss.
But still, some people moan, now because Nile is not acting like a redneck

Quote:

Nile is not acting like a redneck

LOL LOL LOL LOL  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

As I stated elsewhere: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1277162118/34#34


Equitist wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 10:22am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 23rd, 2010 at 10:01am: thy - you may well be rightere. I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. however, your argument is a fallacy ie, fred niles history has no bearing on this topic. by proving the man "wrong" in the past, it has no bearing on this proposal On the contrary, based on previous form, Fred Nile's agenda is far more likely driven by religious bigotry against an opposing faith, than it is a concern for either 'security' or 'women's rights'! If he has a problem with Muslims per se, then he should bloody well say so - rather than hide his true agenda under false pretenses which contradict his previous anti-women's rights pet projects... PS I will make no secret that I despise Fred Nile - primarily on the grounds that he's a patently draconian and chauvanistic bigot!  That said, I also point out that: I find many Muslim (and other religious and political) leaders equally repulsive for similar reasons; and I do NOT support the external imposition of dress rules on women, however, I support the right of individual women to CHOOSE to cover up - or not!

The fundamentally bigoted Fred Nile doesn't give a rodent's backside for women's rights - in fact, he has form for acively running roughsod over them!

He is a chauvanistic religious fundamentalcase and hypocrite of the lowest order!



*Or should that be: he is chauvanistic and paternalistic religious fundamentalcase and hypocrite of the lowest common denomination - since his 'Christian Democratic' party name is such an oxmoron!?

Hang on, Skip!

I, for one, respect every bigot's inherently-superior right to believe that their imaginary doG is better than everybody else's - as long as they don't hide under a false religious cloak and parade their masked egocentrism in public!


( Joke!?  ::) )

I have no problem, in getting rid of the Burka, especially if we get rid a few other trappings, such as the Monks Abbott, I mean Habit and the Judges robes etc.

Actually, the Burka, from outside perspective, seems more an issue of retention of power, by men over women!

Please excuse a slight alteration, Perceptions: -



perceptions_now wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 11:50am:

I have no problem, in getting rid of the Burka, especially if we get rid a few other trappings, such as the Monks Abbott, I mean Habit and the Judges robes etc. Actually, the Burka, from outside perspective, seems more an issue of [anal] retention of power, by men over women!

I also vote to cease muslim immigration.

Do we really have to face this issue?

Could you imagine, seventy years ago, Australians or white people of any nation in which they were a majority, ever wondering that there would come a time when they would be embroiled in an utterly POINTLESS DEBATE with their OWN PEOPLE about whether or not a bunch of mostly foreign imports should be allowed to wear a piece of cloth over their face, a piece of cloth that has the effect of only creeping out everybody else?

The entire debate is a waste of time. What we should debating is; do we really want to increase the numbers of these people here? Do we really want them here at all?

Somebody has to explain to me what we are gaining from bringing these people here. Maybe keeping the burqa legal would only further help to inflame and awaken white people even more, leading them to resolve the root cause of this issue.

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 1:50pm:

Do we really have to face this issue? Could you imagine, seventy years ago, Australians or white people of any nation in which they were a majority, ever wondering that there would come a time when they would be embroiled in an utterly POINTLESS DEBATE with their OWN PEOPLE about whether or not a bunch of mostly foreign imports should be allowed to wear a piece of cloth over their face, a piece of cloth that has the effect of only creeping out everybody else? The entire debate is a waste of time. What we should debating is; do we really want to increase the numbers of these people here? Do we really want them here at all? Somebody has to explain to me what we are gaining from bringing these people here. Maybe keeping the burqa legal would only further help to inflame and awaken white people even more, leading them to resolve the root cause of this issue.

How readily some forget, that modern history is littered with the bodies of non-white, non-Christian peoples being invaded, over-run, indoctrinated, raped, exploited, oppressed, pillaged, enslaved, maimed and murdered - by imperial, cultural, religious, economic and/or military means - often violently but also by stealth...

More recently, we euphemistically called this process 'globalisation' - which we said was a good thing, what with the myths of the 'Growth Fairy' and his evil twin 'The Good Greedy Witch of the West' and their convincing propaganda of  'trickle-down' prosperity from Mickey Mouse Monopoly Money...

Heck, even in Australia, we were convinced that 'Foreign Investment' was a good thing - as long as the associated 'Foreign Ownership' was by lily or off-white foreign parasites...

Moreover, we were never expected to cotton on to the facts that: 'Foreign Ownership/Investment' was inevitably a nett-loss game to Aussies because the 'trickle-down effect' is in reality a 'tentacle-up effect'!

We 'Westerners' will need to STFU, since our amoral and reckless peers and forefathers were jointly and severally responsible, for creating (and/or facilitating) the precented rules on the patently-unlevel playing field, for the dangerous international games that non-Westerners are only just beginning to master...

In short, history and reputation are not on 'our' side, in debating these and other moral and ethical matters!

Equitist wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 3:29pm:

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 23rd, 2010 at 1:50pm: Do we really have to face this issue? Could you imagine, seventy years ago, Australians or white people of any nation in which they were a majority, ever wondering that there would come a time when they would be embroiled in an utterly POINTLESS DEBATE with their OWN PEOPLE about whether or not a bunch of mostly foreign imports should be allowed to wear a piece of cloth over their face, a piece of cloth that has the effect of only creeping out everybody else? The entire debate is a waste of time. What we should debating is; do we really want to increase the numbers of these people here? Do we really want them here at all? Somebody has to explain to me what we are gaining from bringing these people here. Maybe keeping the burqa legal would only further help to inflame and awaken white people even more, leading them to resolve the root cause of this issue. How readily some forget, that modern history is littered with the bodies of non-white, non-Christian peoples being invaded, over-run, indoctrinated, raped, exploited, oppressed, pillaged, enslaved, maimed and murdered - by imperial, cultural, religious, economic and/or military means - often violently but also by stealth... More recently, we euphemistically called this process 'globalisation' - which we said was a good thing, what with the myths of the 'Growth Fairy' and his evil twin 'The Good Greedy Witch of the West' and their convincing propaganda of  'trickle-down' prosperity from Mickey Mouse Monopoly Money... Heck, even in Australia, we were convinced that 'Foreign Investment' was a good thing - as long as the associated 'Foreign Ownership' was by lily or off-white foreign parasites... Moreover, we were never expected to cotton on to the facts that: 'Foreign Ownership/Investment' was inevitably a nett-loss game to Aussies because the 'trickle-down effect' is in reality a 'tentacle-up effect'! We 'Westerners' will need to STFU, since our amoral and reckless peers and forefathers were jointly and severally responsible, for creating (and/or facilitating) the precented rules on the patently-unlevel playing field, for the dangerous international games that non-Westerners are only just beginning to master... In short, history and reputation are not on 'our' side, in debating these and other moral and ethical matters!

PS Dare I suggest that 'we' self-serving and short-sighted Westerners have also recklessly sought to increase our own prosperity, by importing cheap (including slave) labour and outsourcing jobs to other countries...

To borrow from a religious line, 'we' are simply (and inevitably) reaping what 'we' have sown! This should come as no surprise, to any rational and objective person!

What the f*ck does any of that have to do with anything?


Quote:

We 'Westerners' will need to STFU, since our amoral and reckless peers and forefathers were jointly and severally responsible, for creating (and/or facilitating) the precented rules on the patently-unlevel playing field, for the dangerous international games that non-Westerners are only just beginning to master..

What's the purpose of this irrelevant tirade exactly? Are you saying that because White people did some bad things towards other peoples in the past, bad things I would remind you that all other societies and peoples have engaged in, that therefore they have no right to defend, preserve and have their own societies in a manner that they see fit?

Attitudes like yours are exactly what I'm talking about. If we weren't up to our ears with opinions like this, we would never have had to face this issue in the first place.


Quote:

PS Dare I suggest that 'we' self-serving and short-sighted Westerners have also recklessly sought to increase our own prosperity, by importing cheap (including slave) labour and outsourcing jobs to other countries... To borrow from a religious line, 'we' are simply (and inevitably) reaping what 'we' have sown!

Yeah, what's your point? I would agree with you partially on that. I am actually suggesting a REMEDY. We need to stop being so self-serving and short-sighted concerning this matter. I WANT THIS.

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 3:37pm:

What the f*ck does any of that have to do with anything? Quote: We 'Westerners' will need to STFU, since our amoral and reckless peers and forefathers were jointly and severally responsible, for creating (and/or facilitating) the precented rules on the patently-unlevel playing field, for the dangerous international games that non-Westerners are only just beginning to master.. You have a disturbed, poisoned mind. What's the purpose of this irrelevant tirade exactly? Are you saying that because White did some bad things towards other peoples in the past, bad things I would remind you that all other societies and peoples have engaged in, that therefore they have no right to defend, preserve and have their own societies in a manner that they see fit? Attitudes like yours are exactly what I'm talking about. If we weren't up to our ears with Thy.Equitists, we would never have had to face this issue in the first place.

On the contrary, I contend that I am egalitarian, altruistic, honourable and objective - and that it is those of your ilk, who do not uphold the simple moral (and theoretically religious) principles of 'do unto others' and 'live and let live' and 'share and share alike'...

Competition, aggression, oppression, destruction and exploitation are inherently counter-productive and destructive - and they certainly do not beget long-term willing co-operation, harmony, stability, prosperity, sustainability or peace!

Any objective person would see that: 'Westerners' generally believe in competition, inequality, aggression, oppression, destruction and exploitation - although they may sometimes think to utilise more euphemistic terms in their propaganda...

Meantime, I suggest that you consider why 'Western' so-called 'defence' forces so often appear to be on the international offensive...

That said, I do not condone any of the above negative attitudes or behaviours by ANY race, religion, nation or other self-identified group...

Equitist wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 3:37pm:

To borrow from a religious line, 'we' are simply (and inevitably) reaping what 'we' have sown! This should come as no surprise, to any rational and objective person!

How come preening Westerners only ever tell other Westerners that they are reaping as they have sown?  Lazy, corrupt, murderous or thieving third worlders are never, ever, ever, ever told by the same preening Westerners that once in a while they, the tinted people, have reaped as they have sown.  Fancy that.

Soren, can you work out what this guy is saying? I can't.

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 3:49pm:

Soren, can you work out what this guy is saying? I can't.

He says it's all your fault and mine.

Oh okay. Let's just allow ourselves to be destroyed and our societies to be utterly transformed beyond recognition.

We've deserved it. Unlike all the non-white, non-Christian peoples we've invaded, over-run, indoctrinated, raped, exploited, oppressed, pillaged, enslaved, maimed and murdered. We're unique.

The Armenians deserved it and so do we!

imp - thy wants us people who have made advances in science, engineering, medicine, education to apologise to those who have not applied themselves positively.
thy wants us to give up all our assets, bend over and apologise while the useless overbreeding unproductive ne'erdowells shove it up us - WITH no lubricant.

personally, I ain't gonna do that.

aikmann4 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 3:37pm:

Quote: We 'Westerners' will need to STFU, since our amoral and reckless peers and forefathers were jointly and severally responsible, for creating (and/or facilitating) the precented rules on the patently-unlevel playing field, for the dangerous international games that non-Westerners are only just beginning to master.. [quote] What's the purpose of this irrelevant tirade exactly? Are you saying that because White people did some bad things towards other peoples in the past, bad things I would remind you that all other societies and peoples have engaged in, that therefore they have no right to defend, preserve and have their own societies in a manner that they see fit?

[/quote]

Nope, I am being honorable and contrite, by taking some responsibility for the amoral actions of some of my forebears - and demonstrating respect for those who were negatively impacted by same.




Quote:

Attitudes like yours are exactly what I'm talking about. If we weren't up to our ears with opinions like this, we would never have had to face this issue in the first place.

Are you serious about that!?




Quote:

[quote] PS Dare I suggest that 'we' self-serving and short-sighted Westerners have also recklessly sought to increase our own prosperity, by importing cheap (including slave) labour and outsourcing jobs to other countries... To borrow from a religious line, 'we' are simply (and inevitably) reaping what 'we' have sown!

Yeah, what's your point? I would agree with you partially on that. I am actually suggesting a REMEDY. We need to stop being so self-serving and short-sighted concerning this matter. I WANT THIS.[/quote]


Good, glad to hear it!

Now, let us - and all of humanity - take these positive steps, of taking responsibility for past mistakes and respecting basic human and legal rights, and moving forward to create the type of nation and world where our descendants can live equitably, happily, safely and prosperously!

Conflict is self-perpetuating - so, for the common good, let us all metaphorically kiss and make up, eh!?

:-*



PS Apologies for the stuffed-up quotes - but I trust you'll get the gist.

Look, folks...I do realise, that what I'm saying is overly idealistic and unrealistic in the present global circumstances - but I remain hopeful that humanity will wake up to itself, before we unwittingly compete, fight and destroy each other and our precious life-giving environment, to the point of earning a collective Darwin Award, in the wanton and reckless pursuit of the intangible but almighty dollar!

I agree with the greens on this. This bill will be smacked down. It is an attempt to throw away our basic freedoms in order get back at Muslims, but it targets the victims of Islam (the women), not the men. There are plenty of good ways to free women in bad situations. Taking away their rights is not one of them. This bill would push moderates to side with extremists, because it makes us the extremists also - better the devil you know.

Of course the bill will not pass this time. But do not be mistaken about how widespread the resentment is aganst Muslim special pleading.
A yahoo poll:
Should the burqa be banned in public?
Yes 83% 15908 votes
No 17% 3306 votes

Anyway, who of the liberated-minded is prepared to side with the muslim women's liberation movements? No one. The 'liberated-minded' ,  with nary an exception, are all paralised with PC. There is no Western feminist, social justice,  progressive group publicly and loudly siding with muslim women who do not want to be second class citizens, who do not want sharia law that enshrines the inferiority, do not want imams to determine their lives even when they live in the free and democratic west.

Who of you impeccably left-wing progressives will side with them? None of you, because you are all sh!tting yourselves in the face of mustachioed, bearded crazies - or else are far too busy preening and posing. You much rather side with the crazies, just to show how bloody inclusive and smacking non-judgemntal you are.

Phoney progressives  -aintcha sick of 'em?!?!

---

Quote:

Of course the bill will not pass this time. But do not be mistaken about how widespread the resentment is aganst Muslim special pleading.

The only ones doing 'special pleading' are the idiots asking for the Burka to be banned.


Quote:

Who of you impeccably left-wing progressives will side with them? None of you, because you are all sh!tting yourselves in the face of mustachioed, bearded crazies

And you are bravely facing up to ... their women?

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 9:27pm:

Quote: Of course the bill will not pass this time. But do not be mistaken about how widespread the resentment is aganst Muslim special pleading. The only ones doing 'special pleading' are the idiots asking for the Burka to be banned. [quote]Who of you impeccably left-wing progressives will side with them? None of you, because you are all sh!tting yourselves in the face of mustachioed, bearded crazies

And you are bravely facing up to ... their women?[/quote]


No, I am siding with the women who do NOT want to have sharia imposed on them becuse they know on their own skin that they have the most to lose under sharia.

It is a twisted world where the 'progressives' and 'greens' are frantically looking for ways to justify the keeping of women coverd up, silenced and degraded, in the name of being - 'progressive' and 'inclusive'!!! Orwell did know the half of it, I tell you.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 10:47am:

I vote for banning the burqua.

i vote for banning the ppl who wear the burqua as well.
j.

Soren wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 9:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2010 at 9:27pm: Quote: Of course the bill will not pass this time. But do not be mistaken about how widespread the resentment is aganst Muslim special pleading. The only ones doing 'special pleading' are the idiots asking for the Burka to be banned. [quote]Who of you impeccably left-wing progressives will side with them? None of you, because you are all sh!tting yourselves in the face of mustachioed, bearded crazies And you are bravely facing up to ... their women?

No, I am siding with the women who do NOT want to have sharia imposed on them becuse they know on their own skin that they have the most to lose under sharia.

It is a twisted world where the 'progressives' and 'greens' are frantically looking for ways to justify the keeping of women coverd up, silenced and degraded, in the name of being - 'progressive' and 'inclusive'!!! Orwell did know the half of it, I tell you.








[/quote]
inclusive?
ha, ha.
this whole Multicultural bs has to stop here.
i live in "ethnic central" - to quote the Burwood, NSW, Police - and the place is a mess.
j.

Soren wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 9:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2010 at 9:27pm: Quote: Of course the bill will not pass this time. But do not be mistaken about how widespread the resentment is aganst Muslim special pleading. The only ones doing 'special pleading' are the idiots asking for the Burka to be banned. [quote]Who of you impeccably left-wing progressives will side with them? None of you, because you are all sh!tting yourselves in the face of mustachioed, bearded crazies And you are bravely facing up to ... their women?

No, I am siding with the women who do NOT want to have sharia imposed on them becuse they know on their own skin that they have the most to lose under sharia.

It is a twisted world where the 'progressives' and 'greens' are frantically looking for ways to justify the keeping of women coverd up, silenced and degraded, in the name of being - 'progressive' and 'inclusive'!!! Orwell did know the half of it, I tell you.

[/quote]

Rubbish, I've called you on this before.

It is the gutless that run to banning and removing freedoms at the slightest threat or risk.

Get serious! Use such powers if and where they really become necessary. Not because women (some forced, some coerced and some freely) wear a stupid costume.

The tinted, corrupt third-world races are reaping what they've sown. Thank God for the burqa bill!

Once they ban sacks we can all get back to our normal lives in peace.

locutius wrote on Jun 24^th, 2010 at 2:43pm:

Rubbish, I've called you on this before. It is the gutless that run to banning and removing freedoms at the slightest threat or risk. Get serious! Use such powers if and where they really become necessary. Not because women (some forced, some coerced and some freely) wear a stupid costume.

You mean removing freedom to force some women to be faceless? How about the freedom of all manner of other 'cultural' or 'religious' customs?

The ethos of this society of equality before the law, freedom of participation in public life, of expression, of conscience. DOes this mean that you are free to oppose these freedoms? Can you promote INequality of participation, INequality of expression, participation?

There is no possible grounds IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE for expressions of religiously institutionalised inequality to go unchallenged at every turn. '
Religion' is not enough of a veneer to exmpt the burqa from sustained challenge and disapproval. There is no room for anyone who has the vote to go around parading her lack of right to be treated as an equal. Sh should be, at the very least, treated as she wishes to be - as less than equal.
But this is accepting a caste system, a classification of rights.
Yet parading the burqa forces on us precisely that: a fragmentation and differentiation of rights.

If you could be bothered to think past the first slogan that pops up (freedom to wear whatever), you'd see that there is no philosophical or political argument that can reconcile public equality of rights and human dignity and public demands for the right to demonstrate inequality and to demand that freedom on the grounds of equality of rights and dignity.

Soren wrote on Jun 24^th, 2010 at 10:01pm:

Sh should be, at the very least, treated as she wishes to be - as less than equal. But this is accepting a caste system, a classification of rights. Yet parading the burqa forces on us precisely that: a fragmentation and differentiation of rights.

Yes, those burqa wearers force their sacks upon us all.

It really is displeasing to my eyes, I simply cannot bear the sight of these unfashionable black sacks worn without any accessorizing - a shopping bag at the very least. Horrid!

You'd think they'd at least include a nice parasol or bonnet to parade around in, but no. It just isn't fair to the rest of us.

Equality? Ha! You can't be equal until you're prepared to at least stay up to date with the latest fashions.

At least Zorro, the Lone Ranger and the Scarlet Pimpernell had a bit of style.

Karnal rulz!!!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6quogs3GK3Y


Karnal, you are sooo much like Donkey! You two asses must be related.

"pak"-animal

Don't underestimate the donkey, you two. I know a guy who saw one that could talk. It would ask you for little pieces of carrot cake and politely thank you afterwards.

Apparently it smoked too - only a brand called Players Deluxe, according to this guy.