Yesterday, 06:08 AM, updated 16h ago
QUOTE
the legs belong to a lady of 71 years old - gorgeous
QUOTE
Paul Zanetti Cartoonist
BAN THE BURQA - THE HONEST FACTS
This is a piece I wrote her 11 years ago - in October 2014. It's as relevant today as it was then.
If we're going to have a debate about banning the burqa, a little honesty wouldn't go astray.
A few days ago, a misleading article in the Sydney Morning Herald stated the burqa is a religious requirement. With that false proposition the reporter promptly marched off to a couple of constitutional lawyers seeking advice that a ban of the burqua would be 'unconstitutional' on 'religious grounds'.
Never let the facts get in the way of an agenda.
The burqa isn't a religious requirement, it's a cultural choice.
Nowhere in the Qur'an is the word 'burqa' or a requirement for women to cover their face. The closest you'll find is that men and women dress modestly. That's open to interpretation.
The burqa is the full body covering, head to toe. That means the eyes, too, with a mesh for seeing.
The niqab is a cloth facial covering, with only the eyes visible (which is often misunderstood as the burqa).
The hijab is a modest veil that covers (around) the head and chest. It doesn't cover the face,
But for this argument, we'll consider the current burqa ban argument to include both the niqab and burqa, neither of which are required by the Islamic faith.
The burqa's true origin is cultural. It stems back to the Bedouin desert tribes, to protect from harsh desert sun and sandstorms. ('Bedouin' derives from the Arabic word 'Bedu' - 'the desert dwellers')
So, as far as the constitution goes, there's no legal impediment to banning the burqa. But where there's a reasonable argument, is on security grounds.
These days CCTV is a vital part of security and identifying suspects of criminal activity. Just yesterday we saw the example of a couple of brothers caught on CCTV after bashing a football fan who stepped in to defend a woman.
The only way they were caught was security vision. They were immediately identified, posted on various websites, shared on facebook. Within 2 hours of the first web posting, they walked into a police station and handed themselves in
If it's not permissible to wear a balaclava, helmet or other facial coverings into a bank, or government building then all full-face coverings must apply. That includes a burqa or niqab. Racial or religious arguments are farcical and are easily dismissed.
Many non-Bedouins wear burqas. In fact most burqa wearers are not Bedouin.
Many Bedouins are not Muslim, and many Muslims are not Bedouins.
Women who wear a burqa or niqab do it by choice. That's not enough to claim discrimination if asked to remove, or not enough for any protection under any higher constitutional law.
In these times, it's reasonable for the government to make the right laws on security grounds.
One rule for all.
No exceptions.
This is Australia, not the Arab desert
BAN THE BURQA - THE HONEST FACTS
This is a piece I wrote her 11 years ago - in October 2014. It's as relevant today as it was then.
If we're going to have a debate about banning the burqa, a little honesty wouldn't go astray.
A few days ago, a misleading article in the Sydney Morning Herald stated the burqa is a religious requirement. With that false proposition the reporter promptly marched off to a couple of constitutional lawyers seeking advice that a ban of the burqua would be 'unconstitutional' on 'religious grounds'.
Never let the facts get in the way of an agenda.
The burqa isn't a religious requirement, it's a cultural choice.
Nowhere in the Qur'an is the word 'burqa' or a requirement for women to cover their face. The closest you'll find is that men and women dress modestly. That's open to interpretation.
The burqa is the full body covering, head to toe. That means the eyes, too, with a mesh for seeing.
The niqab is a cloth facial covering, with only the eyes visible (which is often misunderstood as the burqa).
The hijab is a modest veil that covers (around) the head and chest. It doesn't cover the face,
But for this argument, we'll consider the current burqa ban argument to include both the niqab and burqa, neither of which are required by the Islamic faith.
The burqa's true origin is cultural. It stems back to the Bedouin desert tribes, to protect from harsh desert sun and sandstorms. ('Bedouin' derives from the Arabic word 'Bedu' - 'the desert dwellers')
So, as far as the constitution goes, there's no legal impediment to banning the burqa. But where there's a reasonable argument, is on security grounds.
These days CCTV is a vital part of security and identifying suspects of criminal activity. Just yesterday we saw the example of a couple of brothers caught on CCTV after bashing a football fan who stepped in to defend a woman.
The only way they were caught was security vision. They were immediately identified, posted on various websites, shared on facebook. Within 2 hours of the first web posting, they walked into a police station and handed themselves in
If it's not permissible to wear a balaclava, helmet or other facial coverings into a bank, or government building then all full-face coverings must apply. That includes a burqa or niqab. Racial or religious arguments are farcical and are easily dismissed.
Many non-Bedouins wear burqas. In fact most burqa wearers are not Bedouin.
Many Bedouins are not Muslim, and many Muslims are not Bedouins.
Women who wear a burqa or niqab do it by choice. That's not enough to claim discrimination if asked to remove, or not enough for any protection under any higher constitutional law.
In these times, it's reasonable for the government to make the right laws on security grounds.
One rule for all.
No exceptions.
This is Australia, not the Arab desert
This post has been edited by gashout: Yesterday, 08:10 AM
Quote
0.0147sec
0.15
6 queries
GZIP Disabled