On Brandis v Hanson

So Senator Hanson turned up in the Senate chamber dressed in a burqa.  To be clear, I don’t think she was making a point about the plight of women in Islam. Rather I suspect – along with George Brandis – that she was engaging in a cheap stunt to make a political point about Muslims. Quite rightly, he called her out on it. But I completely disagree with what he said at this point of his comments:

Senator Hanson, for the last four years, I have had responsibility pre-eminently among the ministers subject to the Prime Minister for national security policy. And I can tell you, Senator Hanson, that it has been the advice of each director-general of security with whom I have worked and each commissioner of the Australian Federal Police with whom I have worked that it is vital for their intelligence and law-enforcement work that they work cooperatively with the Muslim community. And to ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do and I would ask you to reflect on what you have done.

I have no doubt that what he said is factually correct – but nonetheless we are led to believe that our national security is reliant on the subjugation of (some) Muslim women.*  There are many aspects of religious practice that are troubling in a liberal democracy. The burqa is one such practice – now I understand that there are arguments suggesting that the burqa isn’t a religious requirement for Muslim women. Okay. The fact of the matter is that the practice of wearing a burqa is widespread amongst Muslim women. The far more important issue is why they wear them.

If Muslim women voluntarily wore the burqa then there is no problem – people can more or less wear what they like in our society. I have no doubt that many Muslim women do voluntarily choose to wear the burqa or similar garments. I am more confident of this being the case in liberal democracies than not. What does become a problem is when women do not voluntarily wear the burqa.  Now we have an information problem: how we tell the difference between the two cases? Where do we err? Do we suppress the rights of women who want to wear the burqa, or do we tolerate that some women are being coerced in what we hope is a free and open society?

These are troubling questions – Senator Hanson is, I suspect, uninterested in those questions and Senator Brandis should have stopped his answer by saying:

We have about 500,000 Australians in this country of the Islamic faith. And the vast majority of them are law-abiding, good Australians. Senator Hanson, it is absolutely consistent with being a good, law-abiding Australian and being a strict, adherent Muslim.

Paul Kelly in the Weekend Australian makes a bad mistake while pointing out that Senator Hanson was wrong in what she did.

Hanson’s stunt in the Senate was appalling for two reasons — it was an abuse of parliament (which should review its guidelines in relation to religious garments) and it mocked Islam as a faith, since Hanson is not a Muslim and was seeking, in effect, to denigrate the wearing of the burka. This event must not be repeated. 

So far, so good. But then:

No senator should be allowed into the chamber dressed in that way. No senator should be allowed to speak without the chamber first knowing their identity by sight.

That is itself Senator Hanson’s argument; if no person can enter the Senate dressed like that, why should they walk in street dressed like that, and so on.  It should not be repeated because it was profoundly disrespectful to a large group of law-abiding citizens.

* This is also the argument that Tony Abbott and George Brandis used to renege on their promise to repeal s18c.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

126 Responses to On Brandis v Hanson

  1. Lady Nilk, Iron Bogan

    Hanson’s stunt in the Senate was appalling for two reasons — it was an abuse of parliament (which should review its guidelines in relation to religious garments) and it mocked Islam as a faith, since Hanson is not a Muslim and was seeking, in effect, to denigrate the wearing of the burka. This event must not be repeated.

    If we are not allowed to mock other people’s religions by wearing their clothing and symbols I fully expect to hear an outcry the next time someone decides to prance around in a nun’s habit. After all, nuns freely choose to wear one as a visible part of their religious observance and it is hurtful to mock the Catholic faith and it denigrates the wearer.

    Cry me a river, I have no sympathy for the delicate petals crying offense and crocodile tears as a means of trying to garner support from people who are happy to use them as the tools they are.

  2. C.L.

    [Senator Hanson] mocked Islam as a faith … This event must not be repeated.

    Wow.

  3. C.L.

    If George Brandis can come to the Senate dressed as a conservative, I don’t see why Hanson shouldn’t come dressed as a Muslim.

  4. Why should Pat Dodson then be allowed to wear a hat in the Senate chamber? Is it because he is an Irish citizen and has no right to be there in the first place?

  5. Sinclair Davidson

    Lady Nilk – I think we need to differentiate between what we are allowed to do and what we should do.

  6. Confused Old Misfit

    Does Brandis defend other religions with such vigor when they are attacked by foes far more potent than Hanson? His bully pulpit in the HoC allows him the privilege (colour notwithstanding) of running up his virtue signal much higher than the RoA’s are able.

  7. Andre Lewis

    Brandis spoke nonsense. The burqa is a potent symbol of muslim oppression of women and not in any sense a religious garment. Hanson pulled a silly stunt but maybe it will at least spark real debate on what abhorrent cultural practices should be tolerated in Australia.

  8. cohenite

    The burqa is a uniform, the uniform of the most violent, atavistic ideology produced by humanity. Muslim women are collectively Stockholm Syndrome sufferers and the question of whether they wear the disgusting thing willingly is a junk argument; even more so since the Lee Rigby atrocity which resulted in the policy that Western police and defence forces cannot wear their uniform in public.

    Brandis is a fool. The short point is we are at war with islam and our leaders and thinkers are still arguing and contemplating their fucking navels.

    Good on Hanson.

  9. Fat Tony

    Blasphemy laws anytime soon?

  10. jupes

    … it is vital for their intelligence and law-enforcement work that they work cooperatively with the Muslim community.

    Or what? They allow their fellow Muslims to kill us? They kill us themselves?

    The majority of Muslims may not be terrorists however they produce, provide cover for and share the majority of the terrorists’ aims.

    When Australian Muslims double in number which they will do in a decade, we may or may not have more Muslims “working cooperatively” with the authorities. However we will definitely have more terrorists, more security personnel, more bollards and most likely soldiers in the streets.

    And to ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do …

    Far better to mock the bastards than to appease them.

  11. John64

    The issues get conflated but my understanding is that Hanson’s objection to the burqa is solely on security grounds and not religious or social grounds; i.e. the person wearing the burqa cannot be identified.

    I was surprised she gained entry to the Senate; on her say so solely by the fact that Senator Burston accompanied her into the chamber and vouched to the Clerk that it was Senator Hanson under the burqa.

  12. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    We have about 500,000 Australians in this country of the Islamic faith. And the vast majority of them are law-abiding, good Australians. Senator Hanson, it is absolutely consistent with being a good, law-abiding Australian and being a strict, adherent Muslim.

    bollocks!

    “M020,4696 Mohammed: “The man who dies without participating in jihad, who never desired to wage holy war, dies the death of a hypocrite.”

  13. Sinclair Davidson

    … the most violent, atavistic ideology produced by humanity.

    Communism?

  14. Cynic of Ayr

    It’s dead simple:
    Not all muslims are Terrorists but… all Terrorists are muslims. (99.99% is near enough to “all” for me.)
    Would Brandis have said a word if Hanson had walked in wearing the clothing of a Buddhist Monk, a Nun, or a Greek Priest? No. Because he does not fear these people, he only fears muslims.
    What was missing was the part where he said something like, “You should be careful what religion you mock.” (or words to that effect.)
    Brandis openly said, mock muslims and they will kill you. Mock all the other religions, and that’s safe and fair.
    Stupid, crawling, frightened little Bastard!

  15. A Lurker

    In my opinion Islamic women wear the burqa because:

    Their menfolk are forcing them – upon pain of exclusion or threat of violence.
    They have been brainwashed by their culture/family/extended family that wearing it is appropriate.
    They wear it as a statement of hatred against the West, a blatant middle-finger to Australian values and Australian society.

    Brandis, btw, was almost sobbing in terror. I could just imagine him thinking “Good God, what has this woman Hanson done? There will be hell to pay for this!”

    When I heard the terror in his voice I thought of two things.
    First off, that Australian politicians have been for years paying ‘Danegeld’ to Islam.
    The second thing I thought of was that quote attributed to Voltaire…
    “If you want to discover who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.”

    Both things deeply disturbed me.

  16. Haidee

    I admit I don’t think much about the ‘subjugation’ (wearing burqas) of some Muslim women.
    Leave that concern to the feminists.

    Regardless of whether it was a stunt by Pauline Hanson,
    that figure in the Senate was sinister-looking, to the eyes of many of us. Sinister.

    The A-G should be mortified; unable to control his emotions, tremulous and misty-eyed.
    (representing Qld since around 2000; a colossal embarrassment)

  17. cui bono

    cohenite correct. Brandis and Co are overthinking things. We, Western civilization, are in a struggle with medieval Islam. Brandis and Co are struggling to wake up let alone get their boots on.

    Malcolm thinks he’s made a huge step by referring to Islamist terror. A national leader baby stepping way behind common folk.

  18. candy

    Ms Hanson may not have intended it but the oppression of Muslim women, forced to cover every square millimetre of their body by the menfolk, was really brought home. She sent a powerful message there.

    I thought Waleed Aly on The Project seemed embarrassed. He could not force his wife to wear one, as if he did, he could never keep his job on TV. A conundrum for him.

    We’ll see what article he writes on it, however. He will probably compare it to Catholic nuns, however they taken religious vows. Muslim ladies in burqas are housewives. In the end it is their choice, but.

  19. cohenite

    Sinclair Davidson

    #2473495, posted on August 19, 2017 at 10:32 am

    … the most violent, atavistic ideology produced by humanity.

    Communism?

    Let’s not quibble. Let’s just say the 20thC was the century of communism and the 21stC is shaping up as the century of islam. Remember how it started:

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1151859712001/?#sp=show-clips

  20. rickw

    The far more important issue is why they wear them.

    After 911, wearing of islamic garb by muslim women skyrocketed.

    Let’s be really clear and blunt about what this means right now:

    Support for Jihad against the Infidels.

    It is not a complex issue to understand, but facing the reality of the situation apparently is.

    Almost all political commentary and security analysis on terrorism is a garbled mass of contradictions.

    The reason for this is that they won’t honestly acknowledge the basis of islamic terrorism.

  21. jupes

    In the end it is their choice, but.

    If they choose to wear the niqab they are doing it as a fuck you to Australians.

    Otherwise they are being forced to wear it.

    Either way it should be banned.

    Have you ever noticed it is the garment of choice for terrorist’s wives?

  22. Ceres

    Fewer than one tenth of tip offs on extremism come from the muslim community in Britain according to a Times article.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/muslims-stay-silent-on-extremism-tip-off-scheme-r8mjg3ncg0j
    The Paris bomber hid amongst Muslims in Moelenbeek Belgium, knowing full well who he was. Kowtowing to Muslims is a bit like feeding the crocodile hoping it will eat you last. Doesn’t work.
    A picture says a thousand words and Pauline was courageous in pointing out what most Australians think of a political theology which encompasses the legal, social, economic, political and religious aspects of ones life. There is no separation of religion and State. Man made democracy is incompatible with Allah’s rule. The good senators gasped and gave Brandis a standing ovation but most of us gave Pauline a standing ovation for pointing out the elephant in the room.

  23. rickw

    Their menfolk are forcing them – upon pain of exclusion or threat of violence.

    This is a much over stated element, the bottom line is that most muslim women are as bat shit crazy as muslim men.

    Don’t let them off the hook too readily.

  24. rickw

    It’s dead simple:
    Not all muslims are Terrorists but… all Terrorists are muslims. (99.99% is near enough to “all” for me.)
    Would Brandis have said a word if Hanson had walked in wearing the clothing of a Buddhist Monk, a Nun, or a Greek Priest? No. Because he does not fear these people, he only fears muslims.
    What was missing was the part where he said something like, “You should be careful what religion you mock.” (or words to that effect.)
    Brandis openly said, mock muslims and they will kill you. Mock all the other religions, and that’s safe and fair.
    Stupid, crawling, frightened little Bastard!

    Well said.

  25. stackja

    Pauline reopened the debate.

  26. I was born in Ankara, the capitol of Turkey, migrated to Australia, then became a citizen 4 years later. I also lived for a couple of years in the rural Black Sea coast of Turkey where my old man worked at the NATO radar installation facing the USSR. I have some personal experience of the differences between what is/was a modern secular city and the conservative/backward rural areas. It was in those rural areas that I encountered my first burqa and niqab. Never in the city, though many women wore a headscarf just like British ladies did back in the 50’s 60’s.

    The ONLY reason why a Muslim woman wears a burqa or niqab in Australia is because the males of the family insist that she does. In cases (minority) where the woman chooses to wear it, it’s because she has no desire to assimilate. That’s it, there is no other reason.
    A girl is forced into wearing this garb as soon as she becomes sexually attractive. THE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE SURE MEN DON’T FIND HER SEXUALLY STIMULATING. It’s all about the culture of jealousy by the men. Even looking at a woman with lustful eyes is enough to send the men of her family into a near murderous rage, I’VE SEEN IT FIRST HAND in a modern secular country like Turkey. Now imagine that in a backwater shithole like the rural areas of Afghanistan, Iran or Aceh Indonesia.

    One would think that this sort of culture would breed out within a generation or two, but this can only happen if the girls have some freedom and are allowed to mix with the locals. The trouble with migrants/refugees from shitholes like Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc is that the girls do not have freedom, cannot mix with the locals because we’ve allowed them to set up their own schools.
    The imams perpetuate this culture, they insist on it. I suspect they do for purely political reasons.
    Have you heard of honour killings? They happen when a girl tries to escape the vice grip of the males in the family.

    The burqa or niqab HAVE NO PLACE, NONE WHATSOEVER in a place like Australia. Having said that, I’m not in favour of outlawing them. That is a slippery slope and will cause more problems than it will solve.
    We need to find ways to get these people to assimilate. The adults may not, but the kids will. Which girl doesn’t like to feel sunshine on her face or wind in her hair?
    I would suggest banning all madrassa type religious schools. This will force the young ones into secular ‘Australian’ schools. Time will take care of most of the rest.

  27. softly

    George Brandis

    “it is absolutely consistent with being a good, law-abiding Australian and being a strict, adherent Muslim.”

    What is the likelihood of a burqa wearing Muslim standing before a judge in an Australian court? About the same as a niqab wearing Muslim standing before a District Court judge in NSW? A “strict, adherent Muslim” wouldn’t stand for anyone except Allah.

  28. stackja

    Zulu Kilo Two Alpha
    #2473520, posted on August 19, 2017 at 10:56 am
    Burka debate: what’s at stake is equality of women

  29. cynical1

    Let’s see Brandis lecturing poofs at the Mardi Gras dressed as nuns or priests.

    Fucking hypocrits whining about Muslims while Christians are mocked without mercy.

    Let’s see Mincing Tim write a ditty about Mo.

  30. rickw

    No senator should be allowed into the chamber dressed in that way. No senator should be allowed to speak without the chamber first knowing their identity by sight.

    Welcome to what the rest of us have to deal with, fuckwit.

  31. Fisky

    The ONLY reason why a Muslim woman wears a burqa or niqab in Australia is because the males of the family insist that she does. In cases (minority) where the woman chooses to wear it, it’s because she has no desire to assimilate. That’s it, there is no other reason.

    Of course. Because it is impossible to hold down a job if you wear a face covering. So the only “reasons” for wearing the niqab or burka are illegitimate. Ban them now!

  32. cohenite

    The burqa or niqab HAVE NO PLACE, NONE WHATSOEVER in a place like Australia. Having said that, I’m not in favour of outlawing them. That is a slippery slope and will cause more problems than it will solve.

    I don’t think so. The approach you have to take with islam must be the same one islam takes with the West, black/white, yes/no, fuck-off. Bear in mind many countries have already banned the burqa with no consequences.

    Brandis personifies the conciliatory approach; it has failed and is continuing to fail.

  33. A Lurker

    Brandis personifies the conciliatory approach; it has failed and is continuing to fail.

    Brandis is a scared little boy.

  34. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Welcome to what the rest of us have to deal with, fuckwit.

    That’s what I’m finding the most offensive – here’s Brandis, inside Parliament House, protected by armed guards, bollards, an exclusion zone, the whole box and dice, lecturing we lesser mortals…

  35. Frank

    Brandis is a scared little boy.

    It is interesting, his tremulous voiced theatrics struck me as being totally contrived. Badly at that. These people are operating on a level that says something very profound about their opinion of the intended audience. Something contemptuous. If they think we are buying it then they think we are labouring along with an IQ somewhere south of 70. More interesting, journalists seem to fall for it every time.

    Either that or the entire ruling class are retards, for real.

  36. Shy Ted

    If only Pauline was more articulate… still she cooks a mean fish and chips and I don’t ask for much more than that in a woman.

  37. mh

    Paul Kelly is the biggest dumbo in the Australian MSM. No wait, that would be too long a list to compile and review. Most over-rated?

    Well done, Pauline. Great stuff.

  38. Winter has come

    CL

    If George Brandis can come to the Senate dressed as a conservative, I don’t see why Hanson shouldn’t come dressed as a Muslim.

    Gold!

  39. Dave in Marybrook

    Love it, C.L.

    And seriously, there’s poison in Paul Kelly’s push that parliament house should review its protocols regarding religious garb- he’s suggesting that the cultural burqa should only be allowed to be worn by someone who has demonstrated a religious connection.
    This is like saying that the cultural opposition to gay marriage can only be voiced by someone who can prove a personal religious connection. It’s enforcing political correctness at best, thought-policing at worst.

    Haven’t bought the paper yet- bit harsh for sheep here. Did my letter make it in?

  40. Louis Hissink

    Arab ladies dress the way they from habits developed during the Middle Ages when, in order to do their toilets out in the desert, under the lecherous eyes of their husbands etc, they could retain a degree of anonymity. Civilised females of our species still retain that sense of modesty when doing their toilet in public spaces; they prefer not to be watched by the males of their acquaintance.

    Male arabs are not so concerned with modesty, apparently, and for that matter most males of our species tend to be a bit uncouth in their habits, especially when stimulated by gaseous or liquid potions.

    That this habit of wearing a tent to maintain some degree of modesty has now become associated with religion is a logical cultural development often found in uncivilised cultures. But when most arabs no longer live as wandering nomads in the various deserts of the Middle East, the necessity for the personal tents is questionable.

    But perhaps it is necessary when we recall Mises’ point that what distinguishes the human from the animal is the human’s ability to abstain from instinctive behaviour. If males of the species are unable to curb their instincts when confronted with females of the species, then animals they are and to be treated as such.

  41. Fisky

    More interesting, journalists seem to fall for it every time.

    No, they don’t fall for it, it’s their job description to advance the Narrative by any means possible.

  42. Eyrie

    “Law abiding Muslims” – ones that haven’t been caught yet.

  43. Grumpy Racist Islamophobe

    The adults may not, but the kids will

    The kids are even worse.

  44. Y

    Brandis is a treacherous worm. Hanson, while inarticulate and daffy economicly, is 1000x the politician of that malodorous slug.

    As for this bed-shitting over an Arabian misogyny tent, give me a fkn break.

  45. Bushkid

    Let’s see Brandis lecturing poofs at the Mardi Gras dressed as nuns or priests.

    Fucking hypocrits whining about Muslims while Christians are mocked without mercy.

    Yep, sums that aspect up nicely, cynic.

  46. New Chum

    You might like to view this site to see how women feel about the burqa.
    https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi
    and this site
    https://phyllis-chesler.com/
    listed under categories, hijab & burqa.
    https://phyllis-chesler.com/articles/is-covering-the-face-a-religious-duty-in-islam
    The book AN AMERICIAN BRIDE IN KABUL is Phyllis Chesler’s own experience.

  47. Another old bloke

    If they think we are buying it then they think we are labouring along with an IQ somewhere south of 70. More interesting, journalists seem to fall for it every time.

    There’s a strong relationship between those two sentences.

    Taking Kelly as an example, it’s hard to think of a more p0mpous oaf in the federal press gallery.

  48. More interesting, journalists seem to fall for it every time.

    No, they don’t fall for it, it’s their job description to advance the Narrative by any means possible.

    Fall for It? I’ve said it before , this is their ploy.

  49. Roger

    It should not be repeated because it was profoundly disrespectful to a large group of law-abiding citizens.

    So when does the ABC’s baiting of Christians stop?

  50. zyconoclast

    Let’s see Brandis lecturing poofs at the Mardi Gras dressed as nuns or priests.

    It wouldn’t surprise me that he may in future participate in the Mardi Gras dressed as a nun.

  51. One of the few aspects of the muslim/islam debate which I truly enjoy, is watching individuals reveal themselves and their true nature as quislings, jellybacks and…

    …what’s the term for one who claims they argue from a position of principle but when doing so threatens their self interest, they immediately see ‘a larger truth’ and a ‘bigger picture’.

  52. Frank

    No, they don’t fall for it, it’s their job description to advance the Narrative by any means possible.

    True, people like David Marr are just chumming the waters with gobbets of silky tofu for the base. There is little chance he believes what he is peddling.

    The point still remains though, if they think we believe it then they hold us in contempt.

  53. Robber Baron

    Georgie boy stood at the dispatch box and announced to the Islamic world that Australia surrenders!

    Pauline should have stepped down to the Senate floor, picked up the mace and did what any self-respecting man would do; put that traitor down like the sell-out dog that he is.

  54. DM OF WA

    If we condone Muslim men using intimidation and violence to control their wives and daughters then we have surrendered to these barbarians.

  55. Warty

    As I have mentioned elsewhere, Senator Brandis’s emotional outpouring was a boon to both The Australian Conservatives and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, not helped by the fact that his own party was lukewarm in their reception of his string of bleets; not helped by the fact that his opponents the Greens and Labor gave him a resounding clap, indeed a standing ovation. The fact that he sat side on, looking towards his own non committal party, rather than those offering unrestrained support only goes to show that something was very wrong indeed.
    But to the point . . . Pauline. I’m afraid one’s first port of call ought to be to respect her explanations for donning the burka. She explicitly pointed out she was making a point about security, that she had been able to walk from her office down the corridor and into the chamber without challenge: that should not have been able to happen.
    Secondly she pointed out that the burka was both a symbol of oppression and was one in practise too, with some wives being compelled to wear garb that was cultural, not religious and part of a required dress code (amongst some Muslims) because their men are not to be trusted with the sight of a bit of arm, or the exposure of a bit of leg, or what-have-you.
    Obviously there are Muslims in Australia who’d take it upon themselves to be insulted, but I don’t think that was her intent, and I’m prepared to take note of the words she actually used. I do believe she is sincere, and I also believe that is part of her appeal, though I personally have never voted for her.
    Finally, that old cherry . . . Brandis trotting out that old line of appeasement “that they (security) work co-ooperatively with the Muslim community. And to ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do.” Security does not have to work cooperatively with the Hindu community, nor the Bhuddist, nor Yassidis, just the Muslim. Now, I wonder why that might be? It wouldn’t be the fact that we spend more on security, per capita, protecting ourselves against those still in a minority in this country (750,000) as a matter of fact. In other words protecting ourselves against a minority within a minority.
    Brandis would instead prefer that we continue to appease this bunch, that we continue to share a crust in celebration of Iftar, rather than the Passover. What does it say of us that we constantly feel the need to appease those who have more of a tendency to behave badly than any other group in society?
    No, I kinda disagree with you on a few points there, Sinc.

  56. It should not be repeated because it was profoundly disrespectful to a large group of law-abiding citizens.

    Sinc, have I misunderstood you? Are you truly concerned that Hanson’s actions were ‘profoundly disrespectful’?

  57. Oh come on

    You know what would make me believe that the birqa or niqab or any Islamic headcovering is in fact liberating, then let’s turn to the (small but not non-existent) number of women who have renounced the Islamic faith. Surely if these garments themselves are liberating in their own right, then surely these non-believers would have no problem continuing to wear them for their liberating qualities? And in fact, other non-Muslim women would do the same, revelling in the liberating qualities of these garments.

    But, no. I wonder why? Do women not appreciate liberating clothes? I can’t imagine it would be that Muslim women consider these clothes ‘liberating’ because they’ve been conditioned to thinking the merest glimpse of a whiskery old wart growing on great-grandmama’s boney ankle is enough to drive a man wild with lust – surely not.

  58. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    What does it say of us that we constantly feel the need to appease those who have more of a tendency to behave badly than any other group in society?

    Well said. Australia goes on appeasing a sector of the population which continually refuses to make any concessions at all.

  59. David

    I must say I’m uncomfortable with full head covering with just a slit or some sort of mesh for eyes. I think I would turn away from such a person. I’m not a shop keeper, so I don’t have to respond to that situation.

    Last year I was in the Library of the Shiats University, which is a Christian institution but attended by many Hindu and Muslim students. I was with the Vice Chancellor who is also a Bishop in a church he founded, and he was wearing a colourful costume. A young Muslim women covered head to foot came up and asked him if her male companion could take a photo of her with him. He obliged after first asking her to remove the face covering. This she did willingly, departing with a smiling photo of them both and a blessing as well from the Bishop. I thought he got that about right.

  60. Roger

    What does it say of us that we constantly feel the need to appease those who have more of a tendency to behave badly than any other group in society?

    That we no longer believe in the superiority of our culture.

    But change the “we” to “our political leaders and opinion shapers”, because outside of the halls of parliaments, academe and the media the spirit is not one of surrender. Even if people can’t quite articulate why, they have deep reservations about Islam.

  61. H B Bear

    Hanson’s statement was so powerful precisely because of the symbolism of the most virulent expression of a medieval politico-religious cult in the heart of the Western democratic institutions.

    It seems a lot of people can’t deal with that, precisely because they are fundamentally and completely incompatible.

  62. That we no longer believe in the superiority of our culture.

    Speak for yourself, white man!

  63. Sometime back, an idiot former Army colleague of based his entire view of islam on his experiences on holiday in France where they were very polite.

    This debate would be simpler and over much quicker if the apologists for islam lived in a muslim country for a few years.

    And no, a holiday in Bali where the nice little brown men bring you drinks and towels doesn’t count either.

  64. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    This debate would be simpler and over much quicker if the apologists for islam lived in a muslim country for a few years.

    I have had the misfortune to stage through Dubai on several occasions, for simply a few hours. I can’t wait to get out of the shythole.

  65. miltonf

    One good thing about Turnbull’s Senate voting reform is we only have to vote for 12 candidates now.

  66. miltonf

    It is interesting, his tremulous voiced theatrics struck me as being totally contrived. Badly at that. These people are operating on a level that says something very profound about their opinion of the intended audience. Something contemptuous. If they think we are buying it then they think we are labouring along with an IQ somewhere south of 70. More interesting, journalists seem to fall for it every time. Yep right on Frank- they hold us in complete contempt. As the LP does its base.

  67. Robber Baron

    Back for meeting up with a bunch of mates. All Labor voters. All agreed that Hanson did a great thing in exposing Islamic incompatibility with Australian values. 3 of the 5 said they would vote for PHON. Incredible. I’d love to see the next Newspoll.

  68. H B Bear

    I have had the misfortune to stage through Dubai on several occasions, for simply a few hours. I can’t wait to get out of the shythole.

    Seeing these muzzy letterboxes walking down the street is seriously weird. Even in their natural surroundings – backward desert tribal lands.

  69. DM of WA

    Sinclair Davidson
    #2473495, posted on August 19, 2017 at 10:32 am
    … the most violent, atavistic ideology produced by humanity.

    Communism?

    Islam is actually worse. Communist Russia, China, Cuba and others; while morally and ethically abhorrent also achieved some great things, including the emancipation of women. Even today numbers of women in Russia are more closely equal to numbers of men in all professions.

  70. Deplorable

    jupes
    #2473517, posted on August 19, 2017 at 10:54 am
    In the end it is their choice, but.

    If they choose to wear the niqab they are doing it as a fuck you to Australians.

    Otherwise they are being forced to wear it.

    Either way it should be banned.

    Have you ever noticed it is the garment of choice for terrorist’s wives?

    Absolutely correct Jules it is a political statement not a religious statement and anyone who believes otherwise is as big a tosser as Brandis and labor/greens/cross benchers. One party has the courage to bring this to the parliament . The only way it could have been better would be if the 3 One Nation Senators all wore Burka’s. Hinch looked an absolute dick.

  71. J.H.

    In a Nutshell…. What Senator George Brandis did was attack a woman while defending the Burka.

    It’s as simple as that really. Pretty disgusting.

    George Brandis is a male. He doesn’t have to wear head covering when he visits Muslim cities, but Pauline Hanson would be forced to, or she would not be permitted entry into some areas….. Brandis needs to sort himself out.

  72. alexnoaholdmate

    Simple fact.

    Brisbane’s King George Square and the entrance to the Queen St Mall is now surrounded by security bollards.

    There were none there ten years ago – in fact, in the case of the Mall, I believe they’ve only been added in the last few months. After the massacre in Nice and at the Christmas festival in Germany.

    Nobody ever needed bollards to protect us from the Irish, or the Greeks, or the Vietnamese, or the Christian Lebanese, or any other group you desire to name – except one.

    Those bollards are there for one reason. And however Brandis wants to dress it up, the fact remains:

    We made it from 1788 to at least 2001 never needing those bollards. And then something changed.

    And now we’re told – don’t assume these people are killers, because then they won’t help law enforcement when their family members are plotting to kill us?

  73. egg_

    Brisbane’s King George Square and the entrance to the Queen St Mall is now surrounded by security bollards.

    Should all bollards be dressed in burqas, just to remind us why they’re there?
    Alert but not alarmed?

  74. H B Bear

    The only people who don’t know why the bollards are needed are parliamentarians, academics and journalists.

  75. Boambee John

    Their Left sneers at the people in the Victorian era who allegedly draped the legs of tables and pianos lest the sight of these aroused lustful thoughts in passing males, but demands that we “respect” Muslims who drape their womenfolk from head to foot lest the sight of an ankle or a tuft of hair arouse lustful thoughts in passing males.

    Their Left is very Irish, whatever the majority feel, they are against it.

  76. Boambee John

    alexnoah at 1602

    But that nice Mr Turncoat has assured us that we will not allow terrorism to change the way we live (except when we do).

  77. Muddy

    it was profoundly disrespectful to a large group of law-abiding citizens.

    Ooookay then. So as a taxpaying male from predominantly Anglo stock, it’s fine to mock, ridicule, insult, lie about and belittle, myself and my forebears.
    But DON’T LOOK SIDEWAYS AT THE VALUABLE PEOPLE!

    I am so tempted to fecking swear my fecking head off at this point, but I fecking well won’t, because I’m fecking classier than that.

  78. Muddy

    Alert but not alarmed?

    Sorry to be pedantic, but I think that is meant to be ‘Alarmed but unresponsive.’

  79. Sinclair Davidson

    Are you truly concerned that Hanson’s actions were ‘profoundly disrespectful’?

    I wouldn’t describe myself as being ‘concerned’ – but I do think that being gratuitously nasty is unnecessary. By all means single out those specific people who have earned your contempt or anger or derision and give them both barrels but randomly dissing entire communities of people is unnecessary.

  80. Robbo

    I do not care how many women wear a burqa, by choice or enforced by their husbands, however go and wear it in a country where it is tolerated and seen as normal. Australia is not on that list so if you want to live in Australia and not be regarded with fear and loathing ditch those burqa rags. Why doesn’t Brandis grow a pair and do what a number of countries in Europe have done and ban the wearing of this garment in public.

  81. egg_

    The only people who don’t know why the bollards are needed are parliamentarians, academics and journalists.

    Let them have bollards of cake?

  82. Squirrel

    “….nonetheless we are led to believe that our national security is reliant on the subjugation of (some) Muslim women.”

    But it’s really not so bad, because we are apparently at greater risk of being squashed by a falling ‘fridge.

  83. Tel

    I know a bunch of moderate Muslims, not a one of them dresses head to toe with a tiny eye slit only showing. So I’m pretty sure Hanson was not dissing any of those people.

  84. Jim Rose

    The big win is the left will no longer dress up as priests and to mock the Catholic Church now.

  85. RobK

    I don’t think the burka should necessarily be banned but if I was expected to serve someone wearing one i would find it somewhat strange and offensive. Is it ok to be inclined not to acknowledge there is a person under there somewhere.

  86. Terry

    The Burqa should not be banned. It is a free country after all (although that might be arguable given the extent to which nanny has curtailed that freedom in so many aspects of our lives).

    However, if you do choose to wear it then you should expect that you will be treated with the suspicion (that you are choosing to exclude yourself from society) that you deserve and accept the accompanying disrespect and ridicule that go with your choice.

    Your freedom to wear what you want does not extend to freedom from criticism.

    That freedom to dress as you wish does have its limits. The same limits as those that would choose to wear a bike helmet or balaclava to a bank or public buildings or those that would seek to circumvent our laws by remaining hidden when visual confirmation of identity is required (at the border, in our courts, when seeking a welfare payment, when seeking to utilise publicly funded services, accessing public facilities, etc).

    Spare me the “it’s disrespectful” malarkey, I do not care.

    I am not obliged to deliver you respect, particularly when there is none and especially when you have tried your absolute hardest to cultivate the very opposite sentiment.

  87. Crossie

    The good senators gasped and gave Brandis a standing ovation but most of us gave Pauline a standing ovation for pointing out the elephant in the room.

    Not only are our politicians disconnected from the electorate but this episode shows their contempt for the opinions of a majority of the same voters. In that whole anthill there were a handful of Coalition senators who thought that Brandis was wrong. At the next election the voters should show their contempt.

  88. Crossie

    Georgie boy stood at the dispatch box and announced to the Islamic world that Australia surrenders!

    I don’t remember Malcolm announcing surrender as part of the Turnbull Coalition’s platform.

  89. Deplorable

    I wouldn’t describe myself as being ‘concerned’ – but I do think that being gratuitously nasty is unnecessary. By all means single out those specific people who have earned your contempt or anger or derision and give them both barrels but randomly dissing entire communities of people is unnecessary.</em

    I must have watched another Senate because the Pauline Hanson I watched was far from being "gratuitously nasty" as opposed to Hunch and others who were just plain stupid and nasty. A bit of an overstatement I think. Most Liberals did not applaud the stooge Brandis and I believe none stood which could be interpreted that most Liberals agree with Pauline not Brandis. As usual Pauline is way out in front on issues that affect Australians.

  90. rickw

    I wouldn’t describe myself as being ‘concerned’ – but I do think that being gratuitously nasty is unnecessary. By all means single out those specific people who have earned your contempt or anger or derision and give them both barrels but randomly dissing entire communities of people is unnecessary.

    These are the same communities that hold radicals to their bosom right up until the point where they kill infidels?

  91. Warty

    You are of course right, Roger, the appeasement bit is restricted to our political leaders and opinion shapers. Labor is convinced it can do without its blue collar voters, whilst the Libs are convinced they can survive without their conservative base, when really we ought to be suggesting a marriage of convenience: Marise Payne and Christopher Pine (Payne and Pine) join the Labor Party; Tanya Plibersek and Penny Wong move over to the Greens, whilst Lee Rhiannon goes back to CPA, taking with them all the others aligned with them, viz the ones I can’t be bothered to look up.

  92. Muddy

    Warty.
    So who might gleefully join the POYH (Piss On Your Head) Party?
    Sorry, a bit crass I know, but Fondle My Donkey, this is really getting surreal now!

  93. Montezuma's Revenge

    Oh for a one-handed economist who doesn’t mistakenly seek moral equivalence!

    Pauline wears Burqa = Bad

    Muslim women wear Burqas = Good or maybe just fine

    Brandis attacks Pauline = Good

    Brandis defends Muslim ‘communities’ from which the terrorists are drawn = Good

    Communism is bad = Good

    Islam is bad = Bad

  94. Snoopy

    SBS reports on Spanish and Finn terror attacks. No mention of Muslim or Islam, but they did manage to squeeze in ‘rightwing’.

    Xunts!

  95. Snoopy

    Has the Malaysian dwarf renounced her Malaysian citizenship? WTF is she doing hoovering taxpayers’ money?

  96. egg_

    Georgie boy stood at the dispatch box…

    his jowls were a quiver…

  97. Boambee John

    So Turncoat, Brandis, DGASIO and the Commissioner of the AFP regularly assure us that terrorism is NTDWI. Yet they also demand that we respect the Muslim community, so that it will cooperate in the fight against terrorism.

    At first I was confused by this, then I recognised the “cunning plan”. Actually, ASIO and the AFP have used Muslims to infiltrate the extremist Buddhist, Hindu, Bahai and Quaker communities. However, more infiltrators are needed to operate in the Zoroastrian and Shinto communities, and particularly the completely unsupervised Animist and Christian communities, hence the need for many more Islamic immigrants.

    It is now completely clear, the scales have fallen from mine eyes!

    Do I really need to add //sarc//?

  98. Crossie

    In a Nutshell…. What Senator George Brandis did was attack a woman while defending the Burka.

    It’s as simple as that really. Pretty disgusting.

    This one time when all the feminists will forgive him.

  99. Crossie

    The Burqa should not be banned. It is a free country after all

    Terry, the thing is it’s not a free country, just try to walk into a bank with a bike helmet on yet I stood in line behind one of these walking letterboxes at a suburban Commonwealth Bank branch and nobody said a word

  100. but randomly dissing entire communities of people is unnecessary.

    Whom do you think Hanson ‘dissed’

  101. Chris M

    Due to an ignorance of Islamic texts and a willingness to unthinkingly accept to the spluttering and croaking of that fossilised Brandis toad Sinclair failed to understand the Burqa is NOT an Islamic garment so his argument bombed from the get-go.

    It really is beneficial to get educated on the texts, history, life of Mohammad and Islamic doctrine if you want to somewhat understand much less hold forth on this topic. Visiting a library, borrowing and reading an English translation of the Koran would be a start.

  102. alexnoaholdmate

    Due to an ignorance of Islamic texts and a willingness to unthinkingly accept to the spluttering and croaking of that fossilised Brandis toad Sinclair failed to understand the Burqa is NOT an Islamic garment so his argument bombed from the get-go.

    Not sure what point you’re trying to make – but the idea that the burka isn’t Islamic is ridiculous.

    1. It’s only worn in Muslim countries.

    2. The Koran – a direct dictation from Allah himself – says: “O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outergarments close around themselves; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle.” (Surah 33, Verse 59).

    3. The Koran also says: “And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband’s fathers, or their sons, or their husband’s sons…” (Surah 24, Verse 31).

    I await the inevitably-following post, where you will no doubt tell me that I have taken a direct quotation from Allah himself out of context.

    Visiting a library, borrowing and reading an English translation of the Koran would be a start.

    I have three different translations of the Koran – none of which are fundamentally different on this point – and a degree in Islamic studies. I have also contributed (in a minor way) to a major work of scholarship on the early Islamic empire. Am I allowed to comment?

  103. Can you translate Surah 24, Verse 31 into straightforward English please Alex?
    I can see a few interpretations, most of which do not command the burka to be worn.

  104. Terry
    #2473852, posted on August 19, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    +10

  105. Louis

    Brandis the clown actually let the cat out of the bag. It’s a very big point that I think you missed.

    “… it is vital for their intelligence and law-enforcement work that they work cooperatively with the Muslim community.”

    So there you go. For the work of the AFP and intelligence agencies it is VITAL to have the cooperation of the muslim community. And why would that be then? Is there any other part of the Australian community whose cooperation is so vital to the work of the AFP and intelos? That’s a federal Minister admitting they have lost control of the problem. It’s like an out of control prison where the warden warns guards for their own good to get along well with the gangs.

    BTW does any non-Muslim Asutralian believe that the AFP or intelos care about their cooperate let alone consider it vital?

  106. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    “… it is vital for their intelligence and law-enforcement work that they work cooperatively with the Muslim community.”

    I don’t have the references – I’ve quoted them here before from Stephen Matchett’s book, about how the British Special Branch – won the intelligence war against the Irish Republican Army. Here’s a tip, Senator, the Brits didn’t win that war by “working cooperatively with the (Irish) community.”

  107. alexnoaholdmate

    Can you translate Surah 24, Verse 31 into straightforward English please Alex?
    I can see a few interpretations, most of which do not command the burka to be worn.

    The first verse commands women to draw their outer garments close to themselves. The second commands that their head coverings extend to cover their bosom.

    Yes, that doesn’t have to be a burka. My point is: Chris M implied that there was no Islamic basis for the burka in the first place – and thus anyone who associates with Islam is silly, even though it’s only Muslims who wear it. His words: “Sinclair failed to understand the Burqa is NOT an Islamic garment so his argument bombed from the get-go.”

    Yet the Koran mandates women covering themselves in a like manner, and Muhammad’s own people have interpreted that to mean a burka.

    They believe it is commanded in the Koran, even if some others don’t; they find an Islamic warrant for it; and thus, to imply it isn’t Islamic at all, as Chris M did, is sheer nonsense.

    You might as well say that Jews who place a mezuzah on their door aren’t commanded to do so by the Torah.

    Torah commands that a Jew should have “the words of God on their gateposts and doorways”, but it doesn’t at all mandate the form in which those words are to be placed there.

    Yet most observant Jews have chosen to do so with a mezuzah. Would one argue, then, that the mezuzah has no basis in Torah?

  108. alexnoaholdmate

    Can you translate Surah 24, Verse 31 into straightforward English please Alex?
    I can see a few interpretations, most of which do not command the burka to be worn.

    The first verse commands women to draw their outer garments close to themselves. The second commands that their head coverings extend to cover their bosom.

    Yes, that doesn’t have to be a burka. My point is: Chris M implied that there was no Islamic basis for the burka in the first place – and thus anyone who associates with Islam is silly, even though it’s only Muslims who wear it. His words: “Sinclair failed to understand the Burqa is NOT an Islamic garment so his argument bombed from the get-go.”

    Yet the Koran mandates women covering themselves in a like manner, and Muhammad’s own people have interpreted that to mean a burka.

    They believe it is commanded in the Koran, even if some others don’t; they find an Islamic warrant for it; and thus, to imply it isn’t Islamic at all, as Chris M did, is sheer nonsense.

    You might as well say that J e w s who place a mezuzah on their door aren’t commanded to do so by the Torah.

    Torah commands that a J e w should have “the words of God on their gateposts and doorways”, but it doesn’t at all mandate the form in which those words are to be placed there.

    Yet most observant J e w s have chosen to do so with a mezuzah. Would one argue, then, that the mezuzah has no basis in Torah?

  109. Fisky

    Hey Alex, there’s a really good scholar on early Islam you should check out if you haven’t already –

    He wrote a great series on “Mecca” and whether it really existed prior to Islam (starting here)

    http://www.iandavidmorris.com/mecca-before-islam-1-diodorus-and-the-kaaba/

    http://www.iandavidmorris.com/mecca-before-islam-2-makoraba-macoraba/

  110. Up The Workers!

    Keep Pauline but improve the visual amenity of the Senate by covering that bald-headed Quisling George Brandis with a burqa, then ban HIM!

    Perhaps some kind-hearted soul could find old George a more fitting occupation as the Parliament House doormat, or alternatively, as a bollard down the back alley behind Parliament House.

    Has the Prime Quisling been dredging his Cabinet membership from out of the same sewer that the Labor(sic) Party normally dips into for all their rank and vile members, lately?

  111. Deplorable

    I have three different translations of the Koran – none of which are fundamentally different on this point – and a degree in Islamic studies. I have also contributed (in a minor way) to a major work of scholarship on the early Islamic empire. Am I allowed to comment?

    Then you should understand that the koran is just bullshit the same as other religious books. It is all about power. Prophets my are. The Burka is worn in Australia, I was not aware Australia is a muslim country yet.

  112. Haidee

    We don’t see many women in “modest” black robes, out and about in our city. At the airport terminals, they’re referred to as Black Caspers.
    It’s not about religion. “modest” doesn’t mean black shroud.
    It’s a confronting statement to Australians, to the host country. It shouldn’t be tolerated.

    As for our own street clothes – well, standards drop.
    And once upon a time, female persons were expected to cover their heads with a hat or one of those mantillas before entering a Catholic church. Now brides in virginal white (cleavage showing, back exposed to the waist) can approach the officiating priest, no worries

    Pauline Hanson is a brave woman amongst the weaklings

  113. Deplorable

    “First of all it depends upon who you ask. There is disagreement in Islamic circles as to what extent Quran advocates the wearing of the burqa. However, The Quran does not specifically mention the burqa or tell women to wear such extremely confining clothes. Instead, it instructs men and women to dress and behave modestly in society (24:31), which the Ulama or “Scholars” do agree upon. Modern day Muslims base their authority regarding the burqa on the hadith or collected traditions of life in the days of prophet Muhammad. It is important to note here that these “collected traditions” have no place in Islam, (please see relevant articles on this site). Most followers of these traditions know little of their origins or authenticity. For the thousands of traditions attributed to the Prophet only one bears notable credibility:

    “Do not write down anything I say except the Quran. Whoever has written something other than Quran let him destroy it.” (Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, page 171 also Sahih Muslim, Book 42, Number 7147).”

  114. jupes

    By all means single out those specific people who have earned your contempt or anger or derision and give them both barrels but randomly dissing entire communities of people is unnecessary.

    Yeah, fancy dissing communists.

    They shame.

  115. Macspee

    It’s a good thing that when the garment was removed it disclosed PH and not a swarthy guy wearing a suicide vest.
    Her point would have been well made had she asked another party member to don it thereby getting it through to the thick-heads that no one knows what is under the cloak of darkness.

  116. Grumpy Racist Islamophobe

    I was not aware Australia is a muslim country yet.

    Perhaps not quite yet, except in suburbs they have taken over, such as Lakemba, Wiley Park and Punchbowl. In all they are just over 2% of Australia’s population. They will need to get their population up to 5% before it can be claimed that Australia is a Moslem country.

  117. alexnoaholdmate

    Then you should understand that the koran is just bullshit the same as other religious books. It is all about power. Prophets my are. The Burka is worn in Australia, I was not aware Australia is a muslim country yet.

    Sorry – are you agreeing with my contention that to claim that the burka is “non-Islamic” is garbage?

  118. Combine Dave

    This seems fair.

    A burka ban is needed in selected areas:

    There’s an argument that, working from practical considerations as well as the principle that everyone should be treated the same, wouldn’t let anyone in a burka anywhere someone in a ski mask would be challenged or refused entry, like a bank, or a jeweler’s shop, or passport control. Or a school or a hospital. This is a secular argument, it refuses to make exceptions on religious grounds. It’s also rejects cultural relativism, refusing to make exceptions on cultural grounds. I think it’s right.

    So some restrictions on the places where a burka can be worn is reasonable. How about a ban? There’s a tactical argument. Maybe banning burkas or stripey trousers with frayed ends isn’t the right way to bring the problem to an end as fast as possible. I don’t think arresting women for wearing burkas would help. But a formal ban on them being worn to schools (I’m using the word burka to include any religious dress that covers the face)? Yes, that’s reasonable and flows from the ski mask test – ski masks would also be rejected by schools.

    [sic]

    + Practical reasons aside, the burka should be banned. The rights to wear and not to have to wear particular clothing balance out. But the burka is a part of a system of oppression that has no counterweight in the equation. The rights of the voluntary burka wearer are out-weighed; the burka should be banned.

    + We shouldn’t make special exceptions for the burka, so it should be treated like any other mask. That is, we should all be equal under the law. Equality of treatment is implicit in Mill’s idea of personal liberty. Making exceptions generates widespread disaffection and makes only a few happier, so it also fails on utilitarian grounds.

    +The case against sexual apartheid is overwhelming; the practical struggle against it is not helped by European countries adjusting to accommodate it.

  119. Jeremy

    Brandis was wrong when he said it is possible to be an adherent Muslim and a loyal Citizen of Australia. The two things are mutually contradictory.
    Muslims are required to obey the word of Allah as represented in the Koran beyond any other authority.
    Insofar as the Law of Australia contradicts the Koran, which it does regularly and often, the adherent Muslim is obliged to disobey the law. The only reason for obeying non-Islamic law is as a strategem in war to conceal your real aims from the enemy.
    Every Muslim who has sworn to obey the Law of Australia has done so dishonestly.

  120. Chris M

    Hansen was exactly correct in demonstrating burqa & similar are a massive security issue. Bloviating Bullfrog Brandis made it out to be a Moslem issue which is isn’t, it’s a face-covering issue. As ‘Alex’ concedes the burqa isn’t specifically mentioned in the Koran, only guidelines for modest clothing. It’s no more Islamic than a nun’s habit is Christian – it isn’t.

    I loved the ‘direct dictation from allah’ bit, if you had studied it you would understand what Deplorable says. The daily killing, violence, oppression and torture in Islam stems from it’s demonic in nature, as you would have read Mohammad said demons were speaking to him.

  121. Oh come on

    Abbott was right. It’s a confronting garment. Should it be banned? No. People can wear what they want (subject to security tests and whatnot). But is it a confronting garment? Absolutely, and we should make no bones about this, and never hold back on the reasons why we find it confronting if someone happens to ask us why we find it so.

  122. Lady Nilk, Iron Bogan

    Lady Nilk – I think we need to differentiate between what we are allowed to do and what we should do.

    Why? Speaking for myself I’m tired of turning the other cheek. So Pauline wore a burka. So what?

    A friend of mine went culture jamming with a few others. They donned burkas and went to the TAB, the pub, and sat on whoopy cushions on trams. On one occasion she had a policeman tell her that she wasn’t allowed to wear a burka because she wasn’t muslim.

    That was several years ago, and while an entertaining anecdote, it was also a signal of what was to come.

    We have reached a place where a senior member of Parliament gets teary over a stunt by another member of Parliament, calling her out and demanding respect and consideration for a segment of society that contributes handsomely to the wages of security companies countrywide and has reduced the convenience of air travel to the extent that the next time I go to Sydney I think I’ll take a couple of days and enjoy the drive.

    We are living in a post-christian world where all religions/creeds are equal. In that case they should all be mercilessly mocked until they harden the heck up and join us in civilised society.

  123. notaluvvie

    Wow, trying to put sarcasm into Brandis’ mouth: “…absolutely consistent with being a good, law-abiding Australian and being a strict, adherent Muslim.”

    If one were a strict adherent muslim then one would be acting in accordance with the muslimic book of hate, world domination and sex slave ownership which tells its adherents to kill Jews, Christians, hypocrites (although this refers to apostates and various sects, lefties might be in this group as well) and unbelievers. I’m not sure that’s exactly law abiding as we know but it would be as they know it I suppose.

  124. 2dogs

    To some extent, Brandis’ comments were for international consumption.

  125. DrBeauGan

    Who cares if a burqa is confronting? You confront the wearers right back. Smile at them and ask: “Are you a bloke or a chick under there? Or are you a letter-box?”

Comments are closed.