The Australian political response to Islamic Dress Code

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Today in the Australian parliament, a right wing minor party senator pulled a stunt by wearing a Burqa into the senate chamber as she took her place. She was asked to identify herself which she did followed up by her proposition to the senate floor to make the wearing of a Burqa illegal. The question was put to the Australian Attorney General, a member of Australia's conservative government, and this is what followed.


What followed the conservative Australian Attorney General's response was a standing ovation from the opposition party and independent representatives.

I am proud of my nation today.
 

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Today in the Australian parliament, a right wing minor party senator pulled a stunt by wearing a Burqa into the senate chamber as she took her place. She was asked to identify herself which she did followed up by her proposition to the senate floor to make the wearing of a Burqa illegal. The question was put to the Australian Attorney General, a member of Australia's conservative government, and this is what followed.


What followed the conservative Australian Attorney General's response was a standing ovation from the opposition party and independent representatives.

I am proud of my nation today.

Normally I would not have much time for Brandis but on this occasion I am happy to join in the standing ovation. Hanson's stunt was a vicious insult to people of the Muslim faith and a slap in the face to the vast majority of Australians.

Good on you George.
OB
 
Upvote 0

LinguaIgnota

Newbie
Nov 26, 2014
738
1,131
✟59,588.00
Faith
Atheist
People should be free to wear whatever they want. But that being said, I believe the burqa to be detrimental to the individual as well as society as a whole. I live in a country where trust and cooperation are paramount. This poses two undeniable problems:

1. It is difficult to trust someone whose face is obscured. Interacting with someone whose face is obscured is unnerving. You need to be able to see and identify who you're talking to as well as read their facial expressions for signs of their emotions, intentions etc. These are important non-verbal hints when humans communicate with each other.

2. As an extension of #1, wearing a burqa makes you practically unemployable. Most potentiel coworkers will have a hard time forming any kind of bond with someone that they've never really seen. In addition, few people who grew up in a free and open society will feel comfortable doing business with a completely anonymous stranger that's hidden away under a pile of cloth.

If you artificially limit yourself from being part of the workforce you're not contributing to society and that's a big problem. We all have a responsibility to strive for self-sustainability. Choosing to place yourself outside the workforce leaves you with few options. Women who choose to wear a burqa could theoretically have someone, like a husband, provide for them but more often than not they'll apply for unemployment benefits. This constitutes an unreasonable drain on taxpayer resources.

Again, I believe, on principle, that legislating against wearing the burqa is wrong. However, it is a general rule that you must make yourself available to the labor market if you are to receive unemployment benefits. Hence, if you deliberately make yourself unemployable, you shouldn't be eligible to receive benefits.

You may call me a cynic, but I'll venture a prediction: If eligibility to receive financial support from the state was made consistently (meaning for both Frederikke and Fatima) contingent upon your actual availability to the labor market, thus precluding the wearing of a burqa, we'd see "sincerely held religious beliefs" disappear in a matter of minutes and Fatima would be walking around in a pair of jeans before the end of the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chesterton
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
In Australia we already have laws regarding security and identifying yourself when required by lawful authorities eg police or passport control. Similarly there are laws regarding social support payments. As the attorney general stated, changes are not required. Morover, noone from either the left or right parties condone a breach of freedom of religion.

My nation I am so proud of today and I dont always say that. Our country has stated loudly its not going to descend into petty mires that we have seen demonstrated recently by one of our allies.
 
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
People should be free to wear whatever they want. But that being said, I believe the burqa to be detrimental to the individual as well as society as a whole. I live in a country where trust and cooperation are paramount. This poses two undeniable problems:

1. It is difficult to trust someone whose face is obscured. Interacting with someone whose face is obscured is unnerving. You need to be able to see and identify who you're talking to as well as read their facial expressions for signs of their emotions, intentions etc. These are important non-verbal hints when humans communicate with each other.

2. As an extension of #1, wearing a burqa makes you practically unemployable. Most potentiel coworkers will have a hard time forming any kind of bond with someone that they've never really seen. In addition, few people who grew up in a free and open society will feel comfortable doing business with a completely anonymous stranger that's hidden away under a pile of cloth.

If you artificially limit yourself from being part of the workforce you're not contributing to society and that's a big problem. We all have a responsibility to strive for self-sustainability. Choosing to place yourself outside the workforce leaves you with few options. Women who choose to wear a burqa could theoretically have someone, like a husband, provide for them but more often than not they'll apply for unemployment benefits. This constitutes an unreasonable drain on taxpayer resources.

Again, I believe, on principle, that legislating against wearing the burqa is wrong. However, it is a general rule that you must make yourself available to the labor market if you are to receive unemployment benefits. Hence, if you deliberately make yourself unemployable, you shouldn't be eligible to receive benefits.

You may call me a cynic, but I'll venture a prediction: If eligibility to receive financial support from the state was made consistently (meaning for both Frederikke and Fatima) contingent upon your actual availability to the labor market, thus precluding the wearing of a burqa, we'd see "sincerely held religious beliefs" disappear in a matter of minutes and Fatima would be walking around in a pair of jeans before the end of the day.

The OP was about an Australian Senator wearing a burqa in the Senate. This is the equivalent of a Senator dressing up as a mock priest or a fake nun. In the context of the Australian Parliament the act was insulting.

The remainder of your post seems to rest on the premise that the burqa will prevent you getting a job ergo you are a drag on the unemployment benefit system.

How do you know that burqa wearing women "more often than not apply for unemployment benefits"?

If I choose to get tattoos all over my face I probably limit my access to a job. So does inappropriate dress or personal hygiene but you would not advocate laws outlawing these practices.

The issue is about personal freedom Lingualgnota. I find your last paragraph questioning the sincerity of Moslem belief totally insulting in keeping with the rest of your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zoii
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,192.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If I may play devil's advocate for a moment...while the Senator's stunt was in poor taste, there's no denying that certain forms of dress and presentation that don't really integrate well into every society and might be the recipient of some unwanted attention.

What one culture views as a symbol of modesty, another might view as "having something to hide". Not saying that's right, just saying that's a reality.

It's not as if the inverse wouldn't be true as well...there are some Muslim regions where if a women wore this (an outfit that most people here would consider normal and no cause for alarm):
Ellie-Wilde-Unique-Evening-Dress-EW117132-01088_7.jpg


...she might get locked up or worse.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,343.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
If I may play devil's advocate for a moment...while the Senator's stunt was in poor taste, there's no denying that certain forms of dress and presentation that don't really integrate well into every society and might be the recipient of some unwanted attention.

What one culture views as a symbol of modesty, another might view as "having something to hide". Not saying that's right, just saying that's a reality.

It's not as if the inverse wouldn't be true as well...there are some Muslim regions where if a women wore this (an outfit that most people here would consider normal and no cause for alarm):
Ellie-Wilde-Unique-Evening-Dress-EW117132-01088_7.jpg


...she might get locked up or worse.


True, but there should be a difference between cultural norms and illegal. Humans will always shame those who are different but we should resist the temptation to force conformity through the weight of the law.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
If I may play devil's advocate for a moment...while the Senator's stunt was in poor taste, there's no denying that certain forms of dress and presentation that don't really integrate well into every society and might be the recipient of some unwanted attention.

What one culture views as a symbol of modesty, another might view as "having something to hide". Not saying that's right, just saying that's a reality.

It's not as if the inverse wouldn't be true as well...there are some Muslim regions where if a women wore this (an outfit that most people here would consider normal and no cause for alarm):
Ellie-Wilde-Unique-Evening-Dress-EW117132-01088_7.jpg


...she might get locked up or worse.
I'd be just as annoyed with a country that locked up the woman in a ball gown as I would this nun...because remember under the laws in France which DID ban head coverings, nuns were just as much in strife
6d28d0d5583b41bda73bd257effb9c05.jpg


Now we in Australia dont think this nun is dodgy, nor do we the woman with a Burqa, and we dont intend to pass laws forbidding women to dress conservatively, even if it includes covering your head.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LinguaIgnota

Newbie
Nov 26, 2014
738
1,131
✟59,588.00
Faith
Atheist
How do you know that burqa wearing women "more often than not apply for unemployment benefits"?

The Ministry of Employment issued a report a few years back. I have been unable to find it and can't quote the exact numbers. For that reason I will change my statement to: Some of them apply for unemployment benefits. That doesn't, however, detract from the unsustainability of granting benefits to people who are unavailable to the labor market by choice.

If I choose to get tattoos all over my face I probably limit my access to a job. So does inappropriate dress or personal hygiene but you would not advocate laws outlawing these practices.

If you get facial tattoos done after losing employment, knowing that you will have to apply for benefits, then yeah, that should preclude you from receiving financial assistance. Are the tattoos already present before you lose employment it's not unrealistic to assume that you could eventually find a new job within a similar field. Alternatively, you could hypothetically be offered a loan to pay for having your tattoos removed.

Inappropriate personal hygiene is easily remedied by taking a bath. If you have mental issues that prevent you from maintaining a reasonable level of cleanliness, you'll be offered treatment. Ultimately, you might have to get on disability pension instead of unemployment benefits.
If you're otherwise mentally sound and the only thing keeping you from getting in the shower is unwillingness, then yeah, that should preclude you from receiving financial assistance.

The issue is about personal freedom Lingualgnota. I find your last paragraph questioning the sincerity of Moslem belief totally insulting in keeping with the rest of your post.

Over half of the immigrants from Afghanistan were on full-time unemployment benefits in 2014. 63% of people from Lebanon and Iraq. 70% from Somalia. 94% from Syria. It's a fact that some of these people have no intention of ever entering the workforce. There are hundreds of documented cases of people gaming the system for years and years, collecting pensions and benefits while simultaneously being perfectly capable of working, both physically and mentally. But they lack the will. And it has turned me into a bit of a cynic. Last year non-Western immigration constituted a deficit of ~$5.2 billion in social services alone. To put that into perspective, the entire national police force costed ~$1.33 billion.
Everyone, everyone, has a responsibility to contribute to society to the extend that they're able. It's the only way we can maintain our treasured welfare system.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The Ministry of Employment issued a report a few years back. I have been unable to find it and can't quote the exact numbers. For that reason I will change my statement to: Some of them apply for unemployment benefits. That doesn't, however, detract from the unsustainability of granting benefits to people who are unavailable to the labor market by choice.



If you get facial tattoos done after losing employment, knowing that you will have to apply for benefits, then yeah, that should preclude you from receiving financial assistance. Are the tattoos already present before you lose employment it's not unrealistic to assume that you could eventually find a new job within a similar field. Alternatively, you could hypothetically be offered a loan to pay for having your tattoos removed.

Inappropriate personal hygiene is easily remedied by taking a bath. If you have mental issues that prevent you from maintaining a reasonable level of cleanliness, you'll be offered treatment. Ultimately, you might have to get on disability pension instead of unemployment benefits.
If you're otherwise mentally sound and the only thing keeping you from getting in the shower is unwillingness, then yeah, that should preclude you from receiving financial assistance.



Over half of the immigrants from Afghanistan were on full-time unemployment benefits in 2014. 63% of people from Lebanon and Iraq. 70% from Somalia. 94% from Syria. It's a fact that some of these people have no intention of ever entering the workforce. There are hundreds of documented cases of people gaming the system for years and years, collecting pensions and benefits while simultaneously being perfectly capable of working, both physically and mentally. But they lack the will. And it has turned me into a bit of a cynic. Last year non-Western immigration constituted a deficit of ~$5.2 billion in social services alone. To put that into perspective, the entire national police force costed ~$1.33 billion.
Everyone, everyone, has a responsibility to contribute to society to the extend that they're able. It's the only way we can maintain our treasured welfare system.
I respect your views but youre moving off the topic which was the legitimacy of the attorney general's response to a proposition to ban the Burqa. Issues concerning the social welfare system for new immigrant arrivals is abstracting.

Can you please stay with the topic which is about whether people, particularly women, should be allowed to wear conservative head coverings such as a Burqa, and whether the Senator in question was behaving in a manner that respected Parliament and the Australian people
 
Upvote 0

LinguaIgnota

Newbie
Nov 26, 2014
738
1,131
✟59,588.00
Faith
Atheist
I respect your views but youre moving off the topic which was the legitimacy of the attorney general's response to a proposition to ban the Burqa. Issues concerning the social welfare system for new immigrant arrivals is abstracting.

Can you please stay with the topic which is about whether people, particularly women, should be allowed to wear conservative head coverings such as a Burqa, and whether the Senator in question was behaving in a manner that respected Parliament and the Australian people

Sure. My apologies. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zoii
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The OP was about an Australian Senator wearing a burqa in the Senate. This is the equivalent of a Senator dressing up as a mock priest or a fake nun.
No it's not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums