freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:26pm:

Well, the French parliament has judged away and banned face covering because of the motivation behind it.
The Swiss banned minarets because of the motivation behind them. Wilders, the Danish People's Party and all the rest of them have various anti-Muslim policies because of what motivates Muslims.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:37pm:




You are right.


One shouldnt post comments when one is drunk.iWe do have laws against public indecency.





May I posit bfore the learned judge that face covering mandated by a backward , un enlightened culture for the purpose of subjugating , controlling , demeaning and brainwashing  a certain part of the population is INDECENT and should fall under the public indecency statute.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:


Applying such logic FD,

Then we should open all of the prisons, and let all the criminals out.

Because surely, [in being apprehended for their criminal activity] those criminals were merely expressing their own 'individual liberty', to act in the way in which they wished to.

Hell, why are fraudsters imprisoned ???

It was only money they took !!!!



And, why are paedophiles imprisoned ???

They have no wish to harm children.

Paedophiles will profusely insist, and will tell you, that they LOVE CHILDREN.

What right do we have to impinge upon their 'individual liberty', to act in the way in which they wished to.
/sarc off




NOW SOME COMMON SENSE ARGUMENTS....


Karl Popper



Thomas Manni
freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:



Yes FD.

Duh!

They are the ones wearing the burka,    ......so as to conceal their apparent identity.

Duh! Duh! Duh!





Yadda said....
Quote:





IMAGE...
http://barenakedislam.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/afghan_election_gi_gal-vi.jpgw=460&h=300


OR,         ....is it Fatimas' uncle Fred under that burka ???

i.e.
Did Fatima sit the qualifying University examination,
OR, OR, OR,
...did Fatimas' uncle Fred sit sit the qualifying University examination  ???




Who can know ???

Sure, Fatima knows who sat her qualifying University examination.

BUT, BUT, BUT, nobody else can be sure who sat the qualifying University examination.


And i will say it again, and again, and again....

CHOOSING TO DRESS LIKE THIS, CHOOSING TO WEAR A BURKA, SO AS TO CONCEAL YOUR APPARENT IDENTITY IN PUBLIC, IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN OUR CULTURE, i.e. IN AUSTRALIA.


Dictionary;
apparent = =
1 readily perceived or understood; obvious.
2 seeming real or true.








freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2011 at 9:02pm:





My response FD,    ....AGAIN;


IMAGE
http://www.theluxechronicles.com/.a/6a00e54f05e1bb88340120a6ab2571970c-700wi
THIS BEHAVIOUR, CHOOSING TO DRESS LIKE THIS, IN PUBLIC, IS APPROPRIATE IN SAUDI ARABIA

But such behaviour, choosing to wear such attire, in public, in Australia, is offensive to Australian cultural mores.

Quote:


Do they care what you think? Mate, this Australia. We don't get wound up about what everyone else wears. If you don't like our culture, you know what to do.

Quote:


You can posit it whereever you like. It does not make it indecent.

Quote:


No we shouldn't Yadda. How would that protect my liberty? The difference is the criminal are an actual threat and do actual harm. The harm of a piece of cloth is all in your head.

Let's compromise: 



Anglo- Australians pictured with muslims in their new culturally sensitive burqas.

I've been thinking, if they ever try this crap in Australia, I will organise a protest where everyone wear's burqa's. Just burqas.

Religious cloth is good.
But only in Religious places.

I still think Musicians are the worst dressed people.