Burqa Poll | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Burqa Poll

What do you think should be the situation with burqas?

  • Anyone should be able to wear them

    Votes: 2 2.8%
  • Only Muslims should be able to wear them

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • No issues as long as have to be removed if requested by authorities

    Votes: 28 38.9%
  • Ban anything that covers the face

    Votes: 19 26.4%
  • Same law for everyone

    Votes: 16 22.2%
  • Couldn't care less

    Votes: 6 8.3%

  • Total voters
    72
glantone said:
I guess the point I was getting at was everything you are telling me can be traced back to a blueprint developed by men for men.
this point seemed lost on the feminist and acclaimed sociologist, Eva Cox, last night on QandA. Unfortunately no one on the panel was intelligent enough to make the point. Either that or they were scared of being 'disrespectful' to the other religious people present.
 
glantone said:
Um, …sad to say I’m pretty much past it these days, Mighty, but even in my prime and even when there were lashings of female thigh visible I never felt compelled to suddenly mount their legs as they sat on the sofa sipping tea and reading Vogue. Time and place for everything. :)
Brought up in a feminist household where female nudity was not uncommon I find your attitude towards both women and men interesting. Why would you even suggest that having sexual thoughts could be perceived as bad, by anyone of any faith?
Do you think that at the mere sight of a bit of cleavage most men irrespective of their faith become incapable of conducting themselves in a non threatening manner towards women or by default have a right to assert themselves sexually?
I guess the point I was getting at was everything you are telling me can be traced back to a blueprint developed by men for men. You say that it’s a male dominated world and rightly or wrongly women will always be judged differently to the male but who is doing the judging, Mighty, and with what authority do they judge? Just because men can knock women out cold (and lets face it, that’s the only reason men run the world) it doesn’t mean they have to.
That many Muslim women can only feel liberated when under cover only serves to highlight how incapable many Muslim men appear to be at seeing women as individuals and equals.
And, no, if I had a friend male or female who was banging more often than a dunny door on a saturday night I’m not thinking I wish it were me, I’m thinking Hep C, herpies, warts and making mental notes to never share the same glass with him/her. No thanks!
Eat em alive, Tiges!

Big fan of all your posts in this thread Glantone, keep them coming
 
MightyTiger said:
So are you telling me when you go out and see a hot looking girl you don't have any sexual thoughts? And please don't say no as it would simply be a lie, every man has it programmed inside there heads to have sexual thoughts when they see another Female they are attracted to. Heck I even do it myself and I'm a Muslim man, does it make me a bad person? No it makes me Human.

So it would follow that any cultural or religious system that seeks conflict with this human, all too human trait, could be construed as anti-human or contra-human.

No?
 
Tiger74 said:
Again, a burqa is removed for security reasons at passport control, for photo IDS, for entry into a bank (although some make special appointments for existing clients), and so on.

Also schools (and not Islamic ones) have been allowed to discriminate in hiring to ensure their teachers are of the same faith as the school, so some degree of discrimination is permitted by the state.

Permitted? It is funded! Access ministries is the case in point. But I think that is because the state has a bob each way on this issue. Separation of church and state where convenient as long it doesn't cost us votes, seems to be the mantra.
 
KnightersRevenge said:
I know and I think that is because the state has a bob each way on this issue. Separation of church and state where convenient as long it doesn't cost us votes, seems to be the mantra.

To be fair it wasn't any church that established this precedent, but the Fernwood gyms.

They needed an exemption to exclude their existing male members and to stop new ones joining (pissed me off at the time because they took over the only decent gym near my house).
 
Tiger74 said:
To be fair it wasn't any church that established this precedent, but the Fernwood gyms.

They needed an exemption to exclude their existing male members and to stop new ones joining (p!ssed me off at the time because they took over the only decent gym near my house).

Fair enough, a public pool at Clayton has had approval to install a curtain so they can take a women only class. It just feels like we are going backwards as a society. I do have a bee in my bonnet about religion in general (as a reformed catholic I am a bit like a reformed smoker I guess).
 
Tiger74 said:
Hipsters on fat people make me feel uncomfortable, but it doesn't mean people should be banned from wearing them.

:rofl We will have to disagree on the hipsters.

My point is not to ban, but when choosing your clothing, do so with respect.
 
evo said:
this point seemed lost on the feminist and acclaimed sociologist, Eva Cox, last night on QandA. Unfortunately no one on the panel was intelligent enough to make the point. Either that or they were scared of being 'disrespectful' to the other religious people present.
Don't get me started on the lass with the speaking in tongues thing...sheesh!
 
MightyTiger said:
Maybe you missed this part.

And at least I have an opinion and have shared my thoughts with others knowing people would most likely disagree, you however have continually taken pot shots at me for my posting and my views.

The only disturbing thing here is that you seem to have formed a judgement on something without even having any knowledge about it.

We obviously have very different definitions of disturbing.

Questioning another PREnder about his sexual feelings and telling him what he felt, then giving us too much information about your own was quite weird.  At least it resulted in the funniest response I've read on PRE for ages.  Thanks for the laugh glantone.

Questioning me about the sex life of nuns and priests then goading me for not answering when I treated it with the disdain it deserved bordered on kinky.  What it had to do with this topic is beyond me.

On top of that you're the person who posted a graphic image of a multiple choice question about whether you'd "hit" me, highlighted in the affirmative.  Made my skin crawl when someone explained to me what was meant by it.

Combined with some of your other comments on this thread you come across as having a very unfortunate attitude towards women. 
 
evo said:
this point seemed lost on the feminist and acclaimed sociologist, Eva Cox, last night on QandA. Unfortunately no one on the panel was intelligent enough to make the point. Either that or they were scared of being 'disrespectful' to the other religious people present.

think most Australians are pretty kind hearted and generous these days and go out if their way to accommodate people of foreign cultures and faiths, evo.

However, because the culturally liberal cognoscenti are so prominent in academia and the media most people outside the minorities who have something to say about minority religions or foreign cultures or minority rights here in Australia risk being labeled a racist, publicly ostracized and perhaps even their livelihood if they don’t tow a politically correct ideological line. Maybe Eva Cox falls into that category, I don't know.

As a predominately Christian country we are free to vigorously and openly discuss and criticize and make fun of the church for example – try applying that philosophy to a minority religion or community here and you’ll probably be looking at a career change before you can finish your spuds and beans. And of course all this pandering to minorities not only invites them to punch well above their weight but it also leads others to unfortunately dig in deep against them. Debate is stifled. Fear and loathing.
 
Mighty, I'm interested to know your views on the full burqa - the version with which I have an issue - where only the occupant's eyes are visible or no facial feautures are visible at all.
Do you think that particular version is taking things a little too far?

Go Tiges! :)
 
glantone said:
....try applying that philosophy to a minority religion or community here and you’ll probably be looking at a career change before you can finish your spuds and beans.
It is self imposed hypocrisy by the likes of Eva Cox though in this case. She is a prominent Australian sociologist and the very sort of academic who actually sets said PC agenda in this country.

Eva Cox AO (born 21 February 1938) is an Austrian-born Australian writer, feminist, sociologist, social commentator, stirrer and activist. She has been an active advocate for creating more civil societies. She is a long-term member of Women's Electoral Lobby. She is now involved in projects looking at social and ethical accounting for responsible business enterprises.

etc.

Personally I always find intellectual mendacity and hypocrisy particularly annoying.
 
well, I'm yet to meet a left wing academic/professional who doesn't understand how avoiding conflict keeps the cab sav flowing and summer visits to that wonderful little boutique in Paris affordable.....
 
Streak said:
How about ski pants on really fat chicks. Ugh!

Only on chicks? Maybe the Muslims have it wrong and rather than hiding women men should be blindfolded instead. :rofl
 
rosy23 said:
Only on chicks? Maybe the Muslims have it wrong and rather than hiding women men should be blindfolded instead. :rofl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL4iVQyp9L4
 
glantone said:
Mighty, I'm interested to know your views on the full burqa - the version with which I have an issue - where only the occupant's eyes are visible or no facial feautures are visible at all.
Do you think that particular version is taking things a little too far?

Go Tiges! :)

Personally I have no issue with it, but as I stated a few pages back my vote was for No issues as long as have to be removed if requested by authorities.

And as to the highlighted part, well that isn't for me or you to decide, it is up to the individual, whether they think it's necessary or not I don't believe another person should have any say in what is right or wrong for someone else to wear.
 
MightyTiger said:
Personally I have no issue with it, but as I stated a few pages back my vote was for No issues as long as have to be removed if requested by authorities.

And as to the highlighted part, well that isn't for me or you to decide, it is up to the individual, whether they think it's necessary or not I don't believe another person should have any say in what is right or wrong for someone else to wear.

Mighty, thanks for your response. :)
You know that simple concept blows my argument to smithereens and ironically I totally agree with you – crazy simple isn’t it – providing that is, you also believe another person should not have any say in what is right or wrong for someone else not to wear.

If only everything in life could be this simple ……

Go Tiges!
:)
 
Mrs Evo bought me 'hyperbole for dummies' for xmas.

'dissembler' is another handy one. It's a good way to call someone a liar without them noticing. ;D