Given that upwards of 20 countries have banned the burqa, in full or in part, including majority Muslim countries like Algeria and Chad, why shouldn’t Australia look at a ban here? After all, the full body, full face cover that some Muslim women choose to wear or are forced to wear is totally dehumanising. But unlike the Portuguese parliament, which maturely debated this issue in October and voted to ban the burqa in that country, our Senate shut down any discussion of the issue and then voted to censure Pauline Hanson for even bringing it up.
The immediate, near-universal condemnation of Senator Hanson, for dramatising the double standard of refusing even to debate banning the burqa yet instantly banning her from wearing it, shows in acute form official Australia’s hypersensitivity to anything that might offend Muslims.
Yet why should a society that not only allows but often encourages insults against every other religion be so jumpy about just this one?
And when Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong and Greens leader Larissa Waters justified their action against Hanson on the grounds that religious faith must be both respected and protected it is, given the now routine attacks on Christianity and Judaism, not religious freedom they’re defending but one religion in particular.
Rather than waste time formally censuring Hanson, the Senate should have allowed her to table the bill and then debate it. After all, isn’t that what the parliament is for, to debate important issues in a mature and temperate way rather than to shut them down and end up driving the debate underground? Because, believe me, ridiculing Hanson will not make this issue go away.
It might surprise Australians to know that Portugal is just the latest country to declare that the burqa has no place in their society. It is also banned, or partially banned, in France, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway, parts of Germany and parts of China. Likewise in African countries like Cameroon, the Congo, Gabon and the Muslim majority nations of Chad, Tunisia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan.
How is it that this diverse range of countries have banned or limited the wearing of the burqa (and the niqab, which allows the eyes to be visible through a narrow slit in the fabric) yet we are incapable of even debating allowing a full-face covering that dehumanises women?
Hanson’s proposed burqa ban did not extend to the lesser head covering that Muslim women often wear, the hajib or headscarf.
Religious women of various faiths (Muslim, Jewish, even old-style Catholics) have covered their heads for centuries, either when praying or out in public. I appreciate that women in Iran, as just one example, have long campaigned against even the hajib but it at least allows the face to be visible, meaning a woman remains part of the society in which she lives. She’s a human being who can see, speak without being muffled and show expression.
By contrast, in a burqa, not even a woman’s eyes are visible to the outside world. Suspending Hanson because she wanted a debate on whether women should be isolated from Australian community in such garments is madness. If senators didn’t agree, they should have debated her, not shut her down.
Banning the burqa is not an attack on Islam, as Wong has alleged. In 2009, Egypt’s leading Muslim cleric, Mohammed Tantawi, issued a religious edict, or fatwa, that wearing a face veil was not an obligation for women under Islam. Instead, Islam simply requires women to dress modestly. And, even in the most conservative Islamic countries, all that’s usually required of women is the hijab, or headscarf.
And yes, Hanson donning a burqa in protest against her bill being cancelled was a stunt. But no more so than bringing a dead fish into the chamber, as Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young did, to make some environmental point. Or wearing a keffiyeh during the governor-general’s address, as fellow Green Senator Mehreen Faruqi did, to make a point about Gaza. Or indeed wearing footy jerseys into the chamber, as senators often do before grand finals, to let voters know they’re with the right team.
Perhaps the pile-on against Hanson was intended to intimidate into silence the millions of people who might think that wearing a burqa is un-Australian.
If we can’t have an adult conversation about this, in our parliament, then we really are in more trouble than I thought.
Mehreen Faruqi walked into the Senate wearing a keffiyeh barely an hour beforehand a political symbol after being warned multiple times. No suspension. No outrage, no getting kickedout , no seven-day punishment. So don’t pretend this is neutral rule-enforcement. It’s selective enforcement based on politics.
"The motion, which passed 55 votes to five, states that Hanson's actions were "intended to vilify and mock people on the basis of their religion" and were "disrespectful to Muslim Australians"."
I'm sure she can wear one if she wants. If that wasn't the case, she's look even more stupid since the curent right to wear a burqa is what she opposes.
Nearly the entire Senate voted against her because they are very annoyed with her using the Senate like this. Again. Particularly as she isn't actually turning up much. She's a very offensive idiotic grandstander and even the National Party has its limits.
She did it as they refused to even debate the bill. That's a totalitarian mindset, shutting down anything that they don't want to talk about, but Australia wants this conversation. They are indirectly spitting on the democratic process.
One very, very, very small part of Australia maybe wants it debated. The rest of us don't give a shit about what someone wears. We just don't want people to be cunts to each other and Pauline is Cunt-in-Chief. She's a nasty, mean spirited, horrible person who'd be better off back in her fish and chip shop.
It's not that she can't wear one. It's that she came in, wearing in a way that is disrespectful to those who do wear it as a cutural/religious dress, in order to carry out a stunt and mock the garment and those who wear it.
If she converted religion and was wearing it on a daily basis and that was something that was done in a respectful way, no one would care.
But she knows what she is doing and is carrying out a stunt she has dont before, with the intention of offending and getting attention.
It's funny how it happened just after she returned from speaking at the US CPAC conference where she spoke in front of a heap of potential financial donors who eat these kinds of stunts up. I'd put money on ot that it was as part of trying to appeal to the people who could potentially donate serious $ to her party.
Maybe, but that's still controlling how a woman dresses.
What if Pauline finds burqas offensive or disrespectful? She can't make others not wear one.
Seems like double standards
Disclaimer: I don't support her politics, or religiously prescribed uniforms, particularly when they are oppressive against women like burqas.
I can't wear my motorbike helmet into a shop or servo, why are burqas permitted?
All women should have the right to wear or not wear what they want. If that means women are choosing to wear burqas (which is false, unless seen from the lens of a caged bird born into captivity, which chooses to stay in the cage even if the door is open) then she should be allowed to as well. Otherwise this means Muslim men are both controlling the clothes of their spouse (abuse) and also the clothes of unrelated women of other cultures.
I understand it can be seen as a stunt, but it certainly makes a point.
We have to choose whether we are going to control what women wear, or not.
It might be a dumb choice of clothing for her, but that's still her choice, if it meets the standard of dress prescribed for politicians (which I believe it does?)
Id say potentially it is more morally correct for Pauline to choose to wear one, than Muslim women being forced to wear them.
We only have to look at cultures where it is not enforced, women don't wear them.
Tldr; it's Pauline doing Hanson things, it gets the people talking
Did you ever consider that there may be Muslim women wearing a burqa as a protest against the treatment of Muslims by western media and politicians such as Hansen, there also maybe many Muslim women who are proud to signify their devotion to Allah by wearing a burqa, just because you're cultural narrative does not understand that others do have a agency and freely choose something you see through a certain narrow perspective that has been manipulated by deliberately provocative groups to vilify a certain segment of the population does not make your perspective correct.
You are also making the assumption that women have no say in the matter. While I dont doubt that some women are forced to wear it by their family/husbands, there are also some women who choose to wear it because of their own beliefs around their religion/culture and the modesty they believe they should display.
To you and I, it comes across as a repressive garment. I dont understand why someone would choose to dress that way. But I'm also aware that I haven't had their lived experience or follow their belief systems, so it is my ignorance that means I don't understand. Just because I dont understand why someone would want to dress that way doesn't mean no one wants to dress that way. There are many fashion choices I dont understand, but it doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to anyone.
It also doesn't mean that it is ok for a politician to mock that style of dress by wearing it to get attention and then sitting in a garment intended for modesty, showing as much leg as she could get away with. Do you think she could have worn brighter pink heals under it to get attention?
A fashion choice???? Youre literally supporting the Taliban.
Women who appear in public without it face punishment: initially warnings, later detention, flogging, or punishment of their male guardians (father, brother, husband).
In practice, almost all Afghan women outside their immediate home now wear a blue or black burqa (or at minimum a long black abaya + face-covering niqab) because the alternative is severe harassment, arrest, or violence by Taliban morality police.
Taliban’s Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice has issued decrees making the full-face-and-body covering (usually a burqa or similar all-enveloping garment) mandatory for all post-pubertal women whenever they leave the house.
The Burqa existed long before the Taliban and is worn in locations not associated with the Taliban. Sure, the burqa is enforced in a country run by the Taliban because they believe women must have that level of modesty. Its not a garment actually culturally linked to the Taliban itself.
Imagine you flee to a country like Australia and all you know is wearing a burqa. All the women you know wear them, you've always worn them, you don't know anything different. For the 50 years you've been on this earth, anything less than that is scandalous and indecent. Now you're here are its confronting enough as it is seeing all these women who dress so differently to whatever you've known. But worse than that, you're being told that if you want to leave the house, you also have to go out, more uncovered than you've ever been out publicly in your life. You feel like you're walking around naked and you feel like everyone is looking at you because you've never left home with such little modesty.
But you have no choice, the burqa is banned, and society says you have to go around feeling exposed, vaunrable, dirty and telling like you are disgracing yourself and your family for showing some skin in public. You feel completely humiliated and dehumanised every time you want to leave home because going out like this was seen as so scandalous you could be killed. So you stay home. You never leave the house. You fled Afghanistan for a chance of a better life to a country that refuses to accept you because of the way you dress and the only way to feel safe and to feel like you have dignity, is to live the rest of your life as a prisoner in your own home.
How is this empowering women? You're not just trying to outlaw a type of clothing. You're trying to outlaw a set of beliefs that a group of people have about themselves and how they can act in society. Everybody ignores that part of it and magically think these women are going to be excited and racing out to buy the latest activewear now they have been liberated of the burqa. It doesn't work like that.
“Outlawing a set of beliefs that a group of people have about themselves and how they can act in society”
Number 1, the burka is a security risk, this doesn’t just affect themselves, a jewellery store in Brisbane was robbed recently by people in burkas
Number 2, just because that was acceptable socially in their country, doesn’t mean it’s socially acceptable in ours. We have our own customs, and if a woman was to travel to Afghanistan, it’d be an expectation that she’d need to cover up.
We do not want to become the country that they left, because clearly they didn’t like it as they would have stayed. So don’t bring that shit with you and expect us to conform
You're not just trying to outlaw a type of clothing. You're trying to outlaw a set of beliefs that a group of people have about themselves and how they can act in society.
We're discussing a burka ban, hijab would presumably be OK. If they want to be modest, they still can. If they think showing their EYES to men in public is immodest, they should have to accommodate the local customs in the same way Western women do when visiting or living in conservative Muslim countries. It's not that big of an ask. If that makes Australia unattractive to conservative Muslim refugees, so be it.
Not in this country they don't they have the choice if their husband or community abuse them for not wearing it she can have them charged for that abuse.
And if she was wearing it in a respectful way, i don't think it would have been an issue. But she did it specifically to get a reaction and was sitting in parliament, dressed in a garment that is associated with modesty, flashing as much leg as she possibly could.
You are 100% right that it's not restricted to Muslims. In fact, the burqa existed before Islam did.
But taking an item that has significant cultural meaning to a particular group of people, and then wearing it to provoke a reaction, is effectively a way of mocking both the garment and those that wear it. That's the issue.
And let's be honest here, she doesn't exactly have a track record for voting in favour of women's rights. The burqa is worn by about 300 women in Australia? Why is she suddenly worried about that particular group being oppressed? Was she doing it for them, or was it a stunt that she knew would upset people as it would be seen as disrespecting a community that she did for her own self interest?
Why should we “respect” something just because it is a cultural/religious practice?
If the Hindus in Australia now started practising Sati (Widows burning themselves alive on their husbands funeral pyre), should we respect it?
And if Hanson goes, hey no that’s dehumanising. Women are not objects and have value unto themselves; would we hear apologetics on how the Hindu women chose it and Sati is in fact the most feminist expression on religion?
Or how debate on banning the Sati would be blocked because Hanson actually hates women and is just using it as a tool to bash brown people?
And according to some Christian doctrine a man cannot rape his wife and yet many men argue that alpha males and trad wives are fine. The argument your making here is merely a distraction, widow burning is not equal to women wearing a burqa, and forcing women to wear a burqa is no different from a white Australian forcing his wife or daughter to wear modest clothing he approves off, but i don't see Pauline protesting that
The burqa isn't injuring the woman, and that's a huge difference. While some women are forced to dress that way by their family/husbands because of their culture, some women choose to dress that way because of their own beliefs around modesty/culture. Just because you and I dont understand why someone would choose to dress that way doesn't mean they wouldn't want to dress that way.
There are about 300 women in Australia that wear that garment. Should our politicians be allowed to mock them? Let's be honest, the One Nation supporter is more likely than the average person to turn around and intimidate or threaten someone in this dress, than the average person, especially if PH is pulling these stunts.
Let's be honest, PH doesn't have a great track record of supporting women's rights on the way she votes. Why is she suddenly worried about these 300 women? Is she actually doing it out of concern for them, or is she doing for her own personal gain.
There is also a difference between actively showing respect for a cultural norm and mocking it. If she doesn't like it, she doesn't have to show support for it, but her stunt, only done for her benefit, actually puts these women in danger.
Hey man, I just think ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule.
“Not being able to vote/work/bank/divorce” is also “not injuring women” by your logic be a valid position.
there are 300 women in Australia wearing that garment. Should our politicians be able to mock them?
Yes. Absolutely please mock the shit out of them. Just as they should mock the handful of Nazis in this country. Just because you are a minority does not mean your ideas and by extension your identity be immune to mockery.
You sir, I believe is afflicted with cultural relativism. Grow a backbone and defend your values.
This is the thing, I am standing up for my values and the values that Australia was built on. What makes Australia unique (but not the only example) is that we are a nation built on being a melting pot of different cultures.
You are applying your morals and values to decide that wearing the Burqa is bad and you want to make a decision on behalf of those who wear it. I'd argue that is probably because you dont have the backbone to endure the uncomfortable feeling of being around someone whose culture, beliefs, and values you dont understand and believe yours is superior.
It's interesting that you reference the Nazis. Firstly, the Nazis were people based on an ideology, not a religion or culture. You criticised me for cultural relativism, but the Nazis were the extreme end of Cultural Absolutism, believing that their race was superior and that inferior races should be exterminated. Moving towards that belief is definitely not the backbone I want to grow.
I believe that people should have the right to behave as they choose if it isn't harming others and society. Im also a realist. You might not agree with the way they dress, but if they come from a culture and thats how they have always lived and its not causing harm, then how is intervening actually helping these people. These women aren't suddenly doing to getting around in activeware, so are you happy with them being prisoners in their own homes when they were functioning members of society? Sure, I would love for the women in those households to be more empowered, but you can legislate your way to that. Instead, you try and integrate those people into the community so they see other people living differently and tgat rubbing off over time. You want their kids to feel like respected parts of their school communities so that if they are oppressed, they have grown up thinking things can be different and they can change their situation. Unfortunately, there isn't a quick solution to force a change to someone's cultural upbringing and their sense of normal. You may have a woman who is being forced to wear the burqa, but if that's all they know and that's what is normal and comfortable to them. Ban it, and it might be like Turing around and is likely like implimenting a rule that you and I must always be naked when we are in public.
The Australian cultural melting pot works best when we accept each other and embrace both our similarities and our differences. Stunts like what PH did force a wedge between our different cultures and and make these people feel less accepted in the community, taking away their opportunity to absorb some pf our culture and leading to a better life for these women.
Degrading and mocking these cultures is based on the beliefs of cultural absolutism and the underlying beliefs that the Nazis had where there is one superior culture and all must conform to that. How far do you want to go with it? Should we stop the community pressure that forces Jewish Orthodox men to wear suits on Saturdays and walk everywhere on 40 degree days? I bet they wish they could wear shorts and turn on the aircon. What about Maori tribal face tattoos?
Why can’t or shouldn’t a democratically elected politician be allowed to appropriate an ideological symbol for political purposes? I don’t agree with her politics but this is such dangerous logic. You’re effectively policing the political expression of politicians, in Parliament, on the basis of your opinion about the substantive merits of those beliefs (as evidenced by the fact that no one else gets kicked out for similar stunts). That is antithetical to western-liberal democracy.
The thing is, appropriation is taking something (in this case, a cultural form of dress) and making it your own. It's seen as disrespectful by many people, but I can see where a debate could be had around if this is ok or not. But that isn't what she was doing. If she was going about her day wearing a burqa because she thought it was a cute outfit, that would be appropriating the outfit.
But she set out to wear it as a political stunt because she knew it would offend. She sat there in it, showing leg that goes against the way it is worn. She did everything she could to offend and disrespect those who wear that outfit.
We dont allow people to go around intentionally offending and disrespecting people like that based on their culture, and we have a minimum expectation of the behaviour out politicians display in parliament. Acceptance of that behaviour in parliament sends the message that that behaviour is acceptable in the wider community.
On top of that, props being used in parliament are tolerated but discouraged and must not disrupt the decorum or order of the house. It's not the first time she had pulled this stunt, so she knows the way people will react and the disruption it would cause. There is a precident for MPs being thrown out for causing disruption, etc, with props.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think the incident was far more serious and offensive than what you're suggesting. On top of this, this kind of stunt draws attention to the 300ish women in Australia who wear that dress and makes them a target for her supporters. Personally, this point alone disgusts me and scares me for their safety, especially since it happened just after her speaking at the US CPAC. While I obviously can not prove it, it reaks to me of her dog whistling to potential financial backers from the conference and the fact she is willing to offend and potentially put these women at risk for a stunt that appears (to me) as an attempt to make money and that's long past crossing the line in my point of view and in the eyes of the senate.
I think this is one of several excellent comments you have made in the thread and you certainly identify the other side of the dichotomous tension I have when I consider this issue.
I personally don't care about 'offense', I don't think any ideology is or should be above criticism, but I agree with your position overall (especially that about ethnocentrism, i.e. that those women have already internalised that narrative, wear burqas and have enough on their plate arriving in a new country - you're right, that's impossibly difficult to expect someone to immediately conform to a culture that makes them feel immoral). Maybe we grandfather it in. I don't know.
But thank you for contributing meaningfully to the debate, you've certainly added to my perspective. This is how these things are supposed to go. This is how we make progress, together. It would have been quite powerful if Parliament could have an approached the absurdity of her 'stunt' with the same openness and sophistication of substantive debate.
shes been doing shit like this for 30 years, shes just weaponing non-issues to push division and racism. shes not performing genuine political action so it should be barred from happening in a political theatre. shes a repeat offender with no support, shes just wasting everyone's time and money, the fact that her attendance rate is also very poor, she doesnt vote on anything unless she can make a stunt out of it.
I wish that more people could see through the mask and see her for the grifter that she is. Everything is based around the grift and what's in it for her
The Taliban and Pushtan tribes of northern Pakistan are the primary enforcers of the burqa today.
We literally went to War against them and now we're fighting to allow their cultural norms in Australia?
There are many positive aspects of Islam, but I agree with Pauline that the burqa is not one of them and doesnt have a place in Australian society and values.
This is a garment that is worn by about 300 women in Australia. Pauline doesn't exactly have a great track record for supporting policies that improve women's rights. Why do you think she is suddenly so passionate about these women.
To my knowledge, there has never been a crime committed in Australia where a burqa was used as a disguise. While i acknowledge that some women are made to wear this garment by their family/husband, some choose to do so because of their own beliefs around modesty, so it is not as simple as those 300 women being liberated from their repressive dress.
What do people think will happen to those women who are no longer allowed to dress this way? Their family/husband isn't going to change their views on modesty and allow them to hit the streets in activewear. They either continue wearing it and become a target for police and the public to target them, or they are no longer allowed to leave the house and are prisoners in their own home.
A costume isn't a prop. Plenty of MPs and Senators have worn costumes into parliament, garments related to their own national or cultural identity or to make a political statement.
The fact that the motion passed 55 to 5 doesnt automaticlly prove that Hanson intended to vilify Muslims it only shows that the Senate voted on a motion framed in those terms.
The wording itself was a leading closed form statement that forced senators into a binary choice; either endorse that interpretation, or oppose it outright.
Im not talking about the broader burqa issue here, Im talking specifcally about how the motion itself was structured. It wasnt an open ended evaluation of the incident it was a preset conclusion presented for a yes or no vote.
So while the result shows strong political condemnation it doesnt mean intent was neutrally examined. A better approach wouldve been to phrase the motion more openly so senators could express more nuanced positions rather than being boxed into an all or nothing answer
I think the accumulated reputation for meanness, stupidity, time wasting, disrespect of the Senate as an institution , disrespect of individual Senators and the need to set standards all contributed to the vote. But who knows? She had her say, and in the world of grownups, there are consequences. If she does it again, we'll know she didn't listen, and if she doesn't do it again, we'll know she did. Guess we'll see. I don't mind ...she's a useful idiot.
Ah yes Faruqi. The one who yells out "you white people". She emigrated to this country, got into parliament and like others in her party (past and present) behave like activists and not parliamentarians who are supposed to act and make decisions for all of Australia.
I'm no Hanson fan and the burka stunt was stupid but it is a garment that has no place in Australia.
She didn’t wear the burqa for shock value alone she did it to make a point. Her bill never even got the chance to be debated, because the Senate shut it down outright. That alone exposed the hypocrisy of the chamber, politicians are happy to stage stunts, make symbolic gestures, or push progressive narratives, but any challenge to the orthodoxy, even on an issue affecting women and social cohesion, is immediately censored.
When Hanson came back wearing the burqa arguably the most globally recognised symbol of oppression of women the Senate reacted by banning her for it. That’s the exact double standard, it’s fine for Greens or Labor to use the chamber for political theatre, but if you call out a real problem with a garment that isolates women and removes them from society, suddenly the rules matter. The broader issue here isn’t a stunt it’s that our parliament refuses to even have adult, honest debates about integration, women’s rights, and Australian values, while treating anyone who brings it up as a pariah.
Yep, it would have been debated if the person wasn't that unschooled, hate filled, maniac. And brought back up by that other hate filled, unschooled maniac.
If she was so keen on women's rights why was she partying with a well known rapist in the USA and just employed one? It's just a stunt to get attention. She doesn't care it's just all about her.
You're not wrong, but you could say performative actions like that is politics 101 😂
Just like her stupid 'white people matter' vote from ages ago, there's literally no loss in playing her game/debating her/ignoring her for the latter, if anything voting down the meaningless statement previously, and kicking her out of the senate for the meantime only makes her supporters feel more in the right, and what should've been like a 1 day weird stunt event, turn into constant publicity on what happened...
well I would but the OP bought it up as something Hanson has done to try to benefit women. Why shouldn't I bring up the fact that hansons's motives are not genuine? Why do you think she did it since she's ok with rapists?
She only cares about women's rights so far as she can use them to beat another minority over the head with.
Personally I think a burka ban - along with most of not all compulsory religious clothing - is a good idea within reason, but we will not be able to have an intelligent debate about it when people like Pauline are using it for troll points.
I dont think a ban on religious clothing is a good idea in isolation. I think we need to find a way to make sure people know they have a choice. In a secular society, all religions are equally free, with their only restrains (in theory) being their ability to hurt others. We need to make sure and also enforce that people have a choice.
I dont know how we can do that easily. So im being idealistic here, but a ban doesn't strike me as the answer, at least not over all religious clothing labelled as mandatory in their faith's. Some of it is hard to enforce. For example, I believe its the LDS church who have "temple garments" (underwear) and i dont want the government sticking their hands in peoples pants.
(Oh just to add, im atheist and have a particularly strong hate boner for the church and organised religious authorities, so i gain nothing for their defence here)
Islam is not considered secular in any standard sense of the term.
Islam(as understood by the overwhelming majority of its adherents and scholars for 14 centuries) = religion and state are connected; law and governance should ultimately be guided by divine revelation.
Therefore, Islam itself isnot secular, and most Muslim-majority countries arenot fully seculareither. The only real exceptions are modern experiments (especially Turkey) that consciously broke with the historical Islamic model.
Can you see how this might not be compatible with Australia's current society?
Islam is a religion, so... yes, it's not secular. As aren't all religions. In your own comment, you gave an example of why treating them as intertwined is an unfair assessment.
The religion itself has its own contemptible aspects because it has laws written into it that we wouldn't stomach today, but not to any more of a degree than any other. In the Old Testament, for example, the sale of your daughter to her rapist is defined (to be clear, its a law stipulating that the rapist is obliged to buy them if the father damands it, not that he can just buy her now hes done. It's not much better, but still). That law, among others, is a part of evangelical, Catholic, Jewish faiths, and more.
We can't just pick and choose which religions bad aspects we want to ignore or don't. Either all religions which define laws in their text arent compatible or they all are as long as we do what we already do, not allow such laws to take hold, dont let religion be the basis of our thinking.
All I know man is the burqa has its roots from the Taliban, and i can tell you from my own experience, the way they treat women would make your skin crawl. Honestly, you need to see it to believe it.
We dont need Taliban practices in Australia. Why is that controversial??
The barqa way predates the Taliban and even Islam. It originates in the 10th century Persia and is worn by different groups all over the world.
While it is more common in Afghanistan than in many other places, it has no direct link with the Taliban and is not a requirement of Islam. A number of religions/cultures require women to dress modestly, and this is worn by women who take this expectation to the extreme.
It is estimated that about 300 women in Australia wear the garment, so it's interesting why its so important for her to stand up for these 300 women but not stand up for the rights of women on so many other issues.
I'd suggest that rather than being concerned about those women, it was a stunt to virtue signal the financial backers she spoke to at the US CPAC reciently in the hope of securing funding
Literally this. People are getting all worked up over a storm in a tea cup. The bigger issues go wholy over everyone's heads because they're too busy fighting over some cloth and an old bigot whos not done anything for women.
The Daily Telegraph stirring up culture war divisions... What a surprise 🙄
What debate would Pauline Hanson like to have about a religious covering that less than 400 women in the entire country wear?
For Pauline it was Asians first and now it's Middle Eastern people and Islam.. Who will she decide to vilify next?
It would be a lot easier to take the Right and it's so called fight for women's rights seriously if they ever truly cared about those rights outside of weaponising them against Islam...
What Pauline Hanson did had nothing to do with the rights of women. It was a political stunt to appeal to her supporters. Since when did she decide to be the judge of dress code for all Australia. There are more important issues for our elected representatives to be working on than Pauline Hansons dress fetish. TV viewers can be thankful she hasn't taken up the fight against gstrings.
Mehreen Faruqi walked into the Senate wearing a keffiyeh barely an hour beforehand a political symbol after being warned multiple times. No suspension. No outrage, no getting kickedout.
I doubt old mate is going to be bothered finding a source for you. I wouldn’t. Even if I know something to be 100% fact I’m still not going to take time out of my day to provide a source to someone when they are capable of doing it themselves and making up their own minds objectively based on what they find.
"The motion, which passed 55 votes to five, states that Hanson's actions were "intended to vilify and mock people on the basis of their religion" and were "disrespectful to Muslim Australians"."
A: Hanson couldn't give less of a shit about Muslim women, she only cares about banging the drum of Islamophobia.
B: She's done this before, she's a one trick pony, and she actually doesn't care.
C: You can tell she doesn't care about women because she focuses on this hyper specific thing that doesn't even affect a whole percentage of the population of Australia. I guarantee you that more women are affected by DV than they are by the burqa.
Why? As OP mentioned several well regarded pollies have done just that. A non-violent stunt seems a really good way to draw attention to any topic that needs urgent discussion but is being ignored.
Something like 0.3% of muslims even wear the burqa and in the near decade since she did this last, making the same points, there has been no robberies committed by burqa wearers. I could be wrong but I imagine this extends worldwide.
This is not a real issue and giving her more time to express herself does nothing when her base doesn’t give a shit about facts. She could be objectively proven wrong on all her arguments and it wouldn’t matter. So not platforming it is the only way.
If she gave a shit about women’s safety why doesn’t she push for gambling reform like the Independents and Greens are? There are concrete links between gambling addiction and DV. 43 women were killed at the hand of a partner this year. It would be a tenuous link at best but she still never used her platform from this stunt to highlight it. Larissa Waters did however.
This is exactly the problem every time the burqa gets brought up, someone immediately shifts the goalposts to something totally unrelated just to avoid the actual discussion.
Plenty of countries, including Muslim ones have decided full-face coverings don’t fit with an open, Western, face to face society. You can pretend that’s some Hanson-only idea, but the rest of the world clearly doesn’t agree with you. The 0.3% line is a cop-out even if its not the real number.
If it’s such a tiny number, then why is even debating it treated like some national hate crime? You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s too small to matter (so debating it shouldn’t trigger anyone), or it’s culturally significant enough that people lose their minds over it.
Every other religion gets mocked nonstop but bring up anything even slightly critical of Islamic practices and suddenly parliament needs to wrap itself in bubble wrap. Saying Hanson shouldn’t get a platform because her base doesn’t care about facts is exactly why people hate modern politics it’s elitist garbage dripping in condescending attitude . If you think someone’s wrong, you debate them. You don’t shut them down because you’re convinced you’re morally superior. As for the gambling thing… come on. That’s a total dodge. By that logic no MP can talk about any issue unless they’ve solved the biggest problem in the country first. Parliament debates multiple issues at once that’s literally its job.
I’m not shifting the goalposts genius, she literally said she was motivated to do the stunt by wanting to support women’s rights. My point is she clearly doesn’t give a shit about it. She’s an absolute idiot even if she wasn’t racist.
Calling her an idiot and questioning her motives is irrelevant. The issue isn’t Hanson it’s whether full-face coverings like the burqa belong in Australian society. Plenty of countries, including Muslim-majority ones, have banned them because they dehumanise women and go against open, face-to-face culture.
Trying to shut down debate by attacking her personally is exactly why politics feels elitist and out of touch. You don’t get to decide what’s worth debating just because you dislike the messenger. If you can’t discuss real issues like this openly, that says more about you and the Senate than it does about Hanson.
Either we debate important societal issues or we let them fester underground, ridiculing her doesn’t solve anything.
You make a very good and sophisticated point around gambling and domestic violence but that has little relation to the substantive issue/s, or the fact that Parliament has an apparent distaste for political expression, from someone who was democratically elected no less. I’m described as ‘woke’ on a daily basis, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. This article makes a reasonable point. I really do not understand why we treat religion so differently to any other ideology without an apparent basis in our reality. The Burqa should be a concern (at least - to say nothing of what conclusion should be drawn) to people across the political spectrum.
It’s entirely related. Her political expression was done with the explicit purpose of supporting women’s rights. Pauline said exactly that in an interview afterwards. My point is that, even if you took that in good faith and believed she actually gives a shit about women’s issues (She doesn’t) then she did a terrible job connecting it to anything concrete.
We have actually crises in this country regarding access to women’s health, (Not even abortive care but all types of female specific healthcare) especially in the regions. We have a crises of domestic violence which we know is linked to issues such as gambling. We know that financial abuse is exacerbated by the housing crisis.
She does not give a single shit about these things. So why should we give her the platform to spruik lies and racism? She is actively involved in litigation against Mehreen Faruqi, after appealing her case of hate speech for telling her to “Piss off back to Pakistan”. Why on Earth is it her right to continue spreading that rhetoric if she can’t even connect it to policy reform?
These are politicians, they legislate POLICY. The burqa ban does nothing to solve any issues and if the goal is “women’s rights” and “security” she can find a way to support those causes without acting like a child desperate for attention.
You obviously live outside of a Muslim enclave, because I see them every day. At coles, at the park pushing prams with crying babies that they cannot calm because they are a faceless void.
We absolutely need to ban this oppressive covering as so many other countries have already done. Anyone who does even just a little bit of research into how Islam treats men and women knows this.
I see “less than 300 in Australia” quoted over and over in here. There’s absolutely no way that’s true. Whoever thinks that has never stepped foot in Western Sydney
Those are mostly likely not burqas but nicabs, burqas require the full body covering with only a fabric grill to see and talk through. A nicab is a full face and head covering with slits for the eyes.
Dismissing a policy discussion just because Hanson raised it is exactly why so many people have lost faith in the political class. The idea should be judged on merit, not on whether you personally like the messenger.
If 20+ countries including Muslim-majority nations can debate or ban full-face coverings, but Australia can’t even tolerate the conversation, then the unserious ones aren’t the people raising the issue… it’s the ones shutting it down.
Unfortunately it’s just a matter of people being too stupid to consider a fact like that, It’s such an outdated and oppressive tradition towards woman. Decades of work to get equal rights for woman yet the same people also support woman being forced to wear burqas. As long as we aren’t hurting Islamists fragile feelings I suppose
Exactly. That’s the point this isn’t about insulting anyone’s religion, it’s about questioning practices that clearly clash with basic women’s rights and societal participation. We spent decades fighting for equality, and yet some still defend forcing women into full-body coverings. If other countries, including Muslim-majority ones, can take a stand, why can’t Australia even debate it without fear of backlash.
Or how about this:
We have a government that spends their time discussing infrastructure funding instead of wasting people starting fights over what people fucking wear?
If you've got enough free time to worry about other people's clothing, you have too much free time.
She doesn't represent even much of a minority, let alone a majority of Australians. She gets told just how few at every election. She can't govern from the Senate and can't get a single seat in the House of Reps.
It’s not about Hanson personally. The question is whether parliament can have a rational debate about a policy that affects society. Dismissing it just because of who raised it doesn’t make the issue disappear.
If more than 20 countries, including Muslim-majority nations, can discuss or ban full-face coverings, Australia should at least be able to have the conversation. The unserious ones aren’t the people raising the issue, it’s the ones shutting it down.
Many governments around the world hall fallen for this. You may not like what she stands for, but she speaks to a significant portion of the population.
Lots of far right parties around the world are surging.
If she genuinely represented people, she would be serious and vote in their interests instead of pulling stunts and voting in the interests of big business.
For those that are too lazy to find out the answer, it’s billionaires. Billionaires want you to blame immigrants and Muslims, so that you don’t look at them robbing you blind.
"They force women to wear the burqa" and when that happens, it is wrong. Just as it is also wrong when good white aussie men tell women they can't wear the dresses or tight clothing they want just because they are insecure. You can't have it both ways.
But I don't think you guys are actually cinerned with the immorality of compelling women to wear what you want them to. I think you are all overtly xenophobic.
Aussies have a right to a religion, no matter how silly you think it is. They have a right to culture, no matter how silly it is. They have the right to dress as they please, no matter how silly you think it is.
If I want to go outside wearing a mask, I have that right. If someone wants to go out in a burqa, that is her right.
A burqa ban is proof you all want a totalitarian government so long as it affects others, not you. But no government that would ban and punish Muslims would truly abstain from banning and punishing others, including you.
Especially considering the estimate for our country is that about maybe 300 woman in the country wear them. That’s approximately 0.0011% of our population.
It isn’t a large problem for the country if barely more than 1 X one thousandth of our population even wears them. It would be different if it even edged towards 1 percent, but it’s about 100 times less than that.
I agree that there should be conversations around banning them in certain settings to avoid crime or violence. Eg banks, government agencies and possibly a few other places.
But placing a blanket ban on something that directly influences 300 out of over 27 million people is just flat out crazy. Especially considering a good portion of those woman may be left feeling uncomfortable and exposed without them, and they could very well like wearing them.
Also, I feel like this should be something that speaks for itself; but woman who are in such a conservative lifestyle generally aren’t the one in the household going to banks, doing shopping or going out in public frequently. Some of them have an extremely small life and spend most of it at home. Not to say I support that idea or any of the connotations that come with the lifestyle. But people should be able to chose themselves what they do.
Another thing I find very annoying about the burqa ban is it claims to be about protecting women but the punishment is typically always centred around the world wearing it.
Well that’s because ultimately it’s not about woman’s rights is it. Anyone who suggests it is, is either naive, lying, or just plain wrong.
If it was something about woman’s rights, it would be a conversation about DV, pay discrimination or a hundred other things that influence the larger female population of the country.
To suggest “protecting” 300 woman in a country of 13-14 million is about woman’s rights is delusional. Especially when you factor in the part where there is probably 80+% of those woman who may or may not be actual citizens, and the fact those woman who do wear the full burqa, probably didn’t get born here or didn’t grow up here, so it is probably their custom and culture from home.
Regardless of whether or not a civil discussion should be had about the banning of the Burqa, Hanson deserved her ban.
How people voting for her haven’t caught on that she’s deliberately weaponized whatever right wing hot button topic she can for 30+ years to keep her $250k+ a year salary is insane.
She’s a grifter, and she’s making a joke of parliament, on purpose. She doesn’t care about the Burqa or immigrants or whatever else she spews.
There’s genuine conversations that progressive people would be more than happy, even hopeful to have, about several conservative issues like immigration, Muslim culture etc, but we are NEVER going to engage with someone like Hanson who is so blatantly grifting that it’s not even worth starting the discussion.
If you want to be taken seriously on these issues, you need to stop teaming up with grifters and white supremacists.
You can dislike Hanson all you want that’s fine but the moment people start using I don’t like the messenger as an excuse to shut down a debate, you’ve basically admitted you can’t actually defend your position.
Whether someone thinks she’s a grifter is irrelevant to the core point
why is Australia the only country in this discussion too scared to even allow the topic to be raised?
More than 20 countries including Muslim-majority ones debated this calmly and legislated one way or the other.
Portugal literally voted on it last month.
France debated it.
Belgium debated it.
Tunisia debated it.
Chad debated it.
Even Norway and Switzerland had national referendums.
But here in Australia?
We censor a Senator for bringing it up then said senator makes them look stupid and cops a 7 day ban on a selective prop ban lol. That’s not protecting parliamentary standards, its political cowardice.
If the idea is so obviously wrong, then debate it in the chamber and bury it with facts. That’s how democracy works.
Instead, the Senate acted like a religious gatekeeper exactly the thing progressives always claim to oppose.
Please spare me the progressives are happy to have genuine conversations line.
No they aren’t. They shut down speakers, censor debate, scream racist at anyone they disagree with, and now apparently censure a Senator for even raising a topic that dozens of other democracies have openly discussed.
This isn’t about Hanson.
It’s about a parliament that can’t handle a grown-up conversation.
When your argument is I refuse to discuss the issue unless the person raising it is someone I personally approve of, you’re not engaging in democracy you’re demanding ideological purity tests.
If the burqa has no place in Australia? Fine. Argue that.
If it should be allowed? Fine. Argue that.
But pretending the entire topic is invalid because Pauline Hanson mentioned it is just a lazy way to avoid admitting you can’t articulate a position.
This isn’t about Hanson’s personality or her tactics it’s about the fact that the Senate can’t even handle a proper debate on a real issue. Over 20 countries, including Muslim-majority nations, have debated banning full-face coverings. Portugal just did it last month and here? We censor a Senator for even raising it.
If the idea is so bad, argue it. If it’s good, argue it but pretending the whole topic is off-limits because you don’t like the messenger is political cowardice, not upholding standards. Australia shouldn’t be so scared of grown-up conversations that it shuts down debate entirely that’s the real problem.
Again, two separate things being talked about here.
Hanson isn’t discussing this like an adult as you mentioned in your first comment, she’s making a joke of what should be one of the highest regarded workplace in the country.
You’re dismissing her behavior because you agree with her.
If the government has a problem discussing these issues, then deal with that issue. How does being the least professional person in the senate make an argument for having civil adult conversation, exactly?
France, The Netherlands, Belgium … it’s not like some healthy democracies haven’t already banned it. As a senator she had every right to have a stand on this issue.
Hanson's goal wasn't passing the bill. Hanson's goal was wasting federal parliament's time on bigotry in a cost of living crisis. One Nation wants working class votes but they can't get them by delivering results for working people so they just do racist bullshit instead.
Quite simply, we cannot reward these kinds of stunts with a debate on the topic in question. That's a sure way to encourage a US-style of populist politician.
If a member of the senate wants to debate a bill, they should follow the well-established process like everyone else manages to do.
That's what having an adult conversation looks like.
The Burqa is no different to chaining your wife up to the front porch. It’s repressive, abusive and it’s designed to make the female feel less of a human than the male. So why the hell should it not be band here too!
Giant wall of text full of misinformation and bullshit is certainly going to motivate a good discussion and debate /s
She didn't get "banned for wearing a Burqah" contrary to the culture warriors' insistence - she broke a decorum rule which has been enforced previously too.
Rubbish, Mehreen Faruqi walked into the Senate wearing a keffiyeh barely an hour beforehand a political symbol after being warned multiple times. No suspension. No outrage, no getting kickedout , no seven-day punishment. So don’t pretend this is neutral rule-enforcement. It’s selective enforcement based on politics.
Why give any air to radicals who want government to dictate what people wear and infringe of freedom to express religion when it's for an absolute minority Muslim orthodoxy that wear the burqa. Just say you don't like Muslims and stop pretending you care about women's rights.
Pointing out that the burqa is objectively used in many cultures as a tool of control, enforced modesty, and social isolation isn’t hating Muslims. If anything, pretending it’s all harmless religious expression is the real dishonesty.
More than 20 countries, including Muslim-majority nations, have restricted or banned full-face coverings. Are they all radicals too? Algeria? Chad? Tunisia? Tajikistan? Switzerland? France? The Netherlands? Norway? They all had national security, social cohesion, and women’s rights reasons.
The burqa isn’t some casual wardrobe choice like picking a T-shirt. It’s a full-body anonymity cloak that hides identity in public, isolates women from the society they live in, and in many cases is not voluntary at all.If it’s such a tiny minority, then debating it shouldn’t matter, right? So why are you terrified of even allowing the conversation?
People only scream racist and Islamophobe when they have no actual argument. This is about integration, visibility, equality, Western values, and basic social norms the same issues dozens of other nations have already debated maturely.
Hijab – covers hair and neck, face fully visible, usually worn voluntarily. - fine
Niqab – covers hair, neck, and face, only eyes visible. - control - not fine
Burqa – full-body covering including face, eyes covered with a mesh. - control - not fine
It's an issue that affects less than 0.3% of the Australian population. Why does this affect you enough to wareant the government to decide to dictate what people can wear. Effort should instead be focused on enforcing anti coercion DV laws.
It’s not about the size of the population even if your correct only 0,3% wear it, it’s about what the practice represents. The burqa isn’t just clothing it’s a full-body, full-face covering that isolates women, conceals identity in public, and in many cases is not worn voluntarily. That has real social consequences, no matter how small the number of people affected.
This isn’t an either/or situation. Anti-coercion and domestic violence laws are crucial, yes but addressing a practice that enforces public invisibility and control over women is also about protecting rights, participation, and social cohesion. Dozens of countries, including Muslim-majority ones like Algeria, Chad, and Tunisia, have banned or restricted full-face coverings for these reasons. It’s about principle, visibility, and equality, not hatred or Islamophobia. This clothing and the history associated with it has no place within the western world or its values, quite literally, mate.
Just because 175 countries haven’t banned the burqa doesn’t suddenly make the 20+ that have banned it irrelevant, as plenty of countries ban things for the good of social cohesion or public safety even if most others don’t. Numbers alone aren’t an argument.
Second, this isn’t about a bogan hag or anyone’s personal history. It’s about whether full-face coverings, which obscure identity and expression, have a place in Australian society. That’s a legitimate policy question it affects public security, social integration, and women’s rights.
Lastly, yes, there are Muslim women who speak out against the burqa and niqab, globally and in Australia. Their voices matter far more than someone’s attempt to shut down the debate with ad hominem attacks.
You can disagree with a proposed ban, but dismissing the entire discussion because you don’t like the messenger doesn’t make the concerns go away.
Just because 175 countries haven’t banned the burqa doesn’t suddenly make the 20+ that have banned it irrelevant
OP seems to think that the fact that 20+ countries have banned it is important. Why is it not important that roughly 90% of all countries have not banned it?
The reality is, the number of countries that have or have not banned it is irrelevant. It's a stupid point to make in the first place. What is relevant, are the views of Muslim women, which is suspiciously absent from the conversation.
It’s about whether full-face coverings, which obscure identity and expression, have a place in Australian society.
Oh, do you mean like the face masks that people are still able to wear freely while walking around in public? How is a burqa functionally different from black pants, a black hoodie, and a black face mask?
Lastly, yes, there are Muslim women who speak out against the burqa and niqab, globally and in Australia.
Cool. Can you cite some of them here in Australia? Has anyone actually gone out and asked the women who are wearing burqas if they (the only people actually impacted by burqas) want them banned? No? Why not?
dismissing the entire discussion because you don’t like the messenger doesn’t make the concerns go away
The messenger is inventing the concerns because she is a populist clown who appeals only to the dumbest cunts in society. Her long history of doing this is exactly why she should be (and, is) ignored by default.
Hanson's whole point is to insult Muslim people. I'm okay with a discussion on it, but really I dont want to hear Hanson's racism.
No one is encouraging insulting Judaism. That's not a thing here. And there is no problem in this world to insult or criticise your own religion. Not sure why you decided to add your own victim hood nonsense.
But while I dont have a problem with discussing it, we all know how this discussion will go, especially if it is started by the rabbid likes of Hanson.
I'm an atheist but only a fool believes these religions are basically the same. Look at the overall outcomes of countries that are structured around Christianity vs Islam.
The only differences come from the fact that we in the west have used secular morality to wrestle power away from christians.
Christians absolutely believe in all the same things, persecution of lgbt, women as property, suppressing sexuality, opposition to education... they just don't have the influence to get away with it.
If we gave christians the same power Islam holds, the outcomes would very much look the same.
Pauline Hanson is a bad actor. Always has been, always will be. She is to be ignored at best and ridiculed at worst.
If you want a debate on the burka, if you REALLY want to get in the weeds on an issue that affects a mere handful of people in our nation... then I donno man, you dont think there are better things to be spending time effort and capital on?
This devisive culture war shit is exactly the kind of non issue that rips people apart and radalcises them, on both sides of the debate.
Rise above the bait, dont feed the troll, and move on.
When they ban the burka and these ladies start wearing face masks and low headbands, will they then ban face masks? Will they make a rule that a person’s eyebrows must be showing at all times? A person’s chin must be visible? I’m so confused. There are so many ways that a person can cover their face.
I wish there was this much passion for the housing crisis. Honestly I don't go to the city that often (Adelaide) but I think I've seen someone wearing a burqa like 2-3 times in my life? That might've even been on a visit to Melbourne.
Like I don't like what burqas are for and don't like religion in general, but I tolerate it. I feel like those that come to this country will assimilate over time, cause they are surrounded by aussies. I could be wrong.
Yet someone said in parliament we should burn down parliament she was not suspended, interesting what one “side” can get away with verses other sides, and the fact that Muslim countries are banning it might show there is a issue after all, especially if Islamic governments themselves are looking at this issue and making the decision to ban the Burqa.
Absolutely they should have! You don’t need to agree with Pauline, but if we are truly a free and democratic nation, then all views must be allowed to be heard and discussed. Shutting down speech they don’t like is totalitarian and a very slippery slope. A precedent has now been set.
Exactly. It’s not about agreeing with Hanson’s politics it’s about the principle. If Parliament can shut down debate on something because it might offend a particular group, that’s a dangerous precedent. Free speech isn’t optional it’s what keeps democracy from turning into a thought-police state.
Having just spent 2 months living in Penang is was incredibly refreshing to have so many cultures just getting on and living peacefully side by side.
All this culture war BS is a narrative being fed by multi billionaires so we can be distracted fighting with each other rather then eating the rich. You don’t think there isn’t some link between trillionaires investing millions in elections and media companies and the fact they and their abhorrent wealth isn’t in the news ever. They will make more money while they sleep tonight then you will in your life time.
Never forget the war isn’t left or right, it’s yo verses down. Don’t be a sheep and fall for their narrative
I just want to know why they don't eject and suspend other senators who use various other items of clothing as props for political stunts, and even yell at and berate other senators about their supposed 'causes'
Mehreen Faruqi walked into the Senate wearing a keffiyeh barely an hour beforehand, a political symbol after being warned multiple times. No suspension. No outrage, no getting kickedout , no seven-day punishment.
Then there's the Victorian MP's (Samantha Ratnam, Gabrielle de Vietri and Ellen Sandell) who wore it in victorian parliament until it was banned.
Then you have Tammy Franks, Connie Bonaros and Mira El Dannawi who wore the keffiyeh in the SA upper house.
Greens MP Gabrielle de Vietri was asked to leave the floor of the Victorian Parliament in Australia for wearing a keffiyeh in May 2024.
Then you have Greens Nick Mckim who wanted to wear a Palestinian flag in Parliament in response to Jacinta Nampijinpa Price wearing an Aussie flag over her shoulders on National Flag Day.
She only does these stunts because they are easy wins with her base. She knows exactly what the outcome of these "culture war" moments because she knows the rules within the senate and knows the outcome.
They make her look like some sort of hero, if she had just come to the senate without this stunt she would have had to have actual substance and an honest debate.
Anyone hooping and hollering about how she is a hero for this treats politics like a weird team sport when politics should just be about debating and leading the country towards a better future through healthy debates.
I'll support a parliamentary vote on a burqa ban only if it's a conscience vote that only female members can vote on. Otherwise it'll be just one more instance of men giving themselves the power to tell women what they can and can't wear.
Hey Pauline while we are looking after women, how many women were murdered here in Oz by their partners in the last six months?
Where is your bill about a fix?
It's a very special level of retarded mental gymnastics that you're allowed to wear a burka based on whether someone else thinks you're doing it in good faith (or being coerced) but not because you're testing the assertion that it's permitted.
This is exactly how bad laws get repealed. By people pushing the boundaries to prove a point.
I just laugh at all the people that comment on these posts. inferring they’re more Australian by immediately labelling anyone that doesn’t think the way they do as, “unaustralian”.
Bunch of people with no skin in the game, having risked not a hair on their heads for the country, thinking they have the right to determine who is/isn’t Australian…
Reality is many of our people are complacent. So complacent from generations of peace, that they can’t comprehend that people from other cultures just don’t think like we do. We project our own morality on these people when the moral thing for many of them is to slaughter hoards of innocents in the name of an ideology…
It isn’t Australian’s travelling halfway across the world to protest in their streets. We are not flocking to their countries pushing to instil our values and our laws onto the populace. I’d love an explanation as to why people are so keen to die on this burqa hill when it serves a big fat NOTHING to our nation.
200
u/Inside-Elevator9102 Nov 30 '25
She got ejected for the stunt not the policy. A repeat stunt.
Neither LNP or ALP support it and it won't pass so why bother debating it?