AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
Pauline Hanson tried to table a bill to ban the wearing of a face-covering garment in public, namely the burqa. The Senate said no. So she walked in wearing one. Then the same crowd that blocked a vote to ban burqas suddenly demanded a ban on a senator wearing one. You couldn’t script it better.
Greens leader Larissa Waters called it "racist". Independent Fatima Payman branded it "disgraceful" and, bizarrely, in a probably totally unintended "The Castle" moment, even called it “unconstitutional.” While countries across Europe have long grappled with the same issue, with some implementing face-covering bans garnering bipartisan support, the mere mention of it in Australia triggers hysterical censorship, shutdowns, and lectures. Where were the voices of reason from the other side of the Senate? This incident will only amplify Hanson’s visibility and reignite One Nation’s base at a time when trust in our major parties is eroding. I have been a rusted-on Liberal voter ever since I was allowed to vote but maybe for not much longer.
Hanson first walked in without a burqa, sought leave to bring on her proposed ban, was refused, then returned wearing the garment to force the issue into debate. The hypocrisy of the other senators in silencing her before she could even introduce her bill was breathtaking, given how they can delay far more important decisions on economic, housing, and security issues all year, yet organise her censure motion in hours.
If banks, post offices, and courts can insist on visible faces, why can’t the Senate debate similar standards in other public places? Why were previous stunts by Senator Lidia Thorpe not met with the same urgency, especially her past threats to burn Parliament House? If Pauline Hanson is punished for wearing an Islamic face covering in protest, why is Senator Fatima Payman allowed to sit wearing a hijab or headscarf?
Anyway, I don't see what the problem was. Pauline was identifying as a Muslim for the day. Identifying as anything you like is the new normal. I think I identify as an alcoholic for today and get myself another beer.
To read of another view on this, click here. Better still, subscribe to Confidential Daily here. It's a much needed voice in the wilderness!
And for possibly the best-reasoned argument AGAINST the burqa in Western Society is an article by the SPECTATOR AUSTRALIA - click here.
Some facts: The burqa isn't a religious requirement, it's a cultural choice. Nowhere in the Qur'an is the word 'burqa' or a requirement for women to cover their face. The closest you'll find is that men and women dress modestly. That's open to interpretation. The burqa is the full-body covering, head to toe. That means the eyes, too, with a mesh for seeing. The niqab is a cloth facial covering, with only the eyes visible (which is often misunderstood as the burqa). The hijab is a modest veil that covers (around) the head and chest. It doesn't cover the face. The proposed burqa ban is about the niqab and burqa, neither of which are required by the Islamic faith.
These days CCTV is a vital part of security and identifying suspects of criminal activity. If it's not permissible to wear a balaclava, helmet or other facial coverings into a bank or government building, then this must also include a burqa or niqab. One rule for all.
