Interesting what happened when an Ozzy MP wanted to discuss banning the burka

Yes, I can’t remember where it was made but there actually a tv advert that effectively gave the green light to men to sexually harass women not fully covering themselves. That’s not great for the majority of women.

But a civil society should not be enabling those who oppress women by expecting them to be covered.

We need to look at how we can ban full face coverings (while allowing medical masks). It may be a little tricky but it is not healthy for us to keep capitulating to a minority religion who are determined to change many aspects of our society. Face coverings, banning dogs in public areas, forced marriage, first cousin marriage - all of these things are bad for our society - we mustn’t be scared to say a firm NO.

Well I am actually not ok with men going round covered from head to foot either, so it's not just about women, it's about our expectations as a society.

Several Muslim countries have banned the burkha for security reasons. So it's not 'anti Islam' either.

If women are 'choosing' to do this, all by themselves, no pressure from the men, then surely the men in their lives (should a ban be invoked) would be saying ' you really don't need to be wearing that'.

But yet, here are all the concerns that women won't be allowed out of the house.

Speaks volumes.

This is an irrelevant question in the UK as our authorities have shown again and again that they are scared of militant muslim men from Salman Rushdie affair to Batley and the men parading in London threatening to rape the Jews. So the police would just turn a blind eye. This is partly where the belief that there's two tier policing comes from.

Agree that this is crazy 👆personal safety should be above every other consideration

I'm always amazed that the Sikhs I work with don't have to wear hard hats onsite. Don't get me wrong, I love Sikhs in general. Have worked for two Sikh run businesses and they genuinely treated me like family, but H&S is H&S and a breeze block falling from two stories up doesn't care about your religious beliefs.

Where there are women wearing burkhas there are men subjugating them

Neither is snobbery, to be fair.

Tbf, chaviness isn't a religion.

One unfortunate “side effect” of the popularity of the burka is that it implies that those women who don’t cover up are seen as loose-living or worse by the men who insist on the dress for their womenfolk. So it’s not simply a case of live and let live; it is damaging to the perception of women in this country by a growing demographic.

Another issue is a tranche of women who cannot participate in society, eg are unable to perform jury service. Or in fact work in a lot of places. They are effectively segregated.

YY, I’m very torn, but I agree with this.

40 years ago one hardly saw anyone wearing the hijab (in London). Now it's everywhere. I would prefer if all religious dress were just banned and everyone kept their religion private and in their synagogues, mosques, temples and churches. No clapping and singing in the streets, no public proselytising, no religious banners.

How would it be implemented? Who knows, we'd find a way.

You don't liberate women by dictating to them what they can or can't wear. The only thing you are doing is changing the oppressor.

I think this is the only thing that is fair.

If you just ban women from wearing religious face coverings it would be incredibly misogynistic.

But it just makes you look click-baity and lazy when you use Pauline Hanson to make your point.

i have no idea what you are on about. I was asking a relevant question because i have no idea who she is and have observed the ‘racist’ accusation being used to silence women repeatedly.

If you want to post something advocating for women’s rights, go ahead.
I just did - you seem to have missed it.

I don’t think a civilised society should allow women to be subjugated and hidden.
People may argue that some women choose to wear the burqa but while Muslim women are murdered for not wearing them, I don’t believe it is truly a free choice even if it is framed as such.

I read an article recently saying that a lot of young women in Germany are coming under pressure from their communities to wear more restrictive dress too.

Well I’m using the racist accusation here because it’s true.

If you want to post something advocating for women’s rights, go ahead. Make your argument. But it just makes you look click-baity and lazy when you use Pauline Hanson to make your point. An advocate for women, she is not. Do you even know what point she was trying to make by wearing what she wore?

Exactly. It makes me think of boiling the frog slowly. A series of tiny steps, all in the same direction which culminate in women having their human rights removed.

Covering women’s faces in public is not for the benefit of the women.

I’ve got no idea who she is. I’m not claiming I’ve ever heard of her but I do know that many people use the ‘racist’ accusation to silence people saying uncomfortable but necessary things. I don’t think a civilised society should allow women to be subjugated and hidden.

People may argue that some women choose to wear the burqa but while Muslim women are murdered for not wearing them, I don’t believe it is truly a free choice even if it is framed as such.

I agree, I live in an area of London which has a large Muslim population, and has had that population for a long time. Forty years ago while most Muslim women wore hijab, very few wore niqab, and those who did tended to be older women. Now wearing niqab is far more common, and it is often worn by young women, who by their accents are London born. I don’t know if they are choosing to wear it, or are under family pressure to do so, but I do believe that it is a trend that is socially diverting and frankly it worries me that so many UK born young Muslim women are choosing/being encouraged to isolate themselves from mainstream society. I don’t know if this is a response to racism, or religious pressure but either way, it is not a healthy indicator for a cohesive society.

Not confused at all thanks. Hence the clarification.

I see many more face covered women now. As I'm sure you rtft you will note the comment about a yr6 girl with face covered at school, it has been claimed on another thread that a poster's UK school had girls attending in burqas. I queried at the time because I know the difference between a burqa and a hijab. hth

I don't have one, as I've already said. And I don't need one in order to be able to say that a burqua ban is a poor idea for all the reasons I've stated.

Please don't pretend you care about women and girls when you are happy to accept the risk of serious harm to them in order to ban religious face coverings. It doesn't ring true that your reason for wanting a ban is to protect women and girls, when your "solution" causes them further harm. Of course it's already illegal to imprison people, but most of us want to make it harder for criminals to commit those crimes and want to protect victims. Not hand them victims on a platter.

You seem to be contradicting yourself - are young girls near you wearing burqa or not? The face covering that Hanson is talking about banning, as opposed to a headscarf.

@Grammarnut seems equally confused.

Like I said, Hanson is no friend to women!

Hanson hits where it hurts, but there’s always more hope

^^
Social and community workers, counsellors, police, health workers, court and government officials, researchers, policy writers – everyone who works in the area of family violence – have one thing in common.
Hope.

It is hope for the safety of women and children and hope that men who use family violence can change their beliefs, attitudes, behaviours and choices that has driven the work of No to Violence for 25 years.
It is hope that men, and the performance of masculinity that lies behind family violence, can change, that drives me, personally, every day.
Perhaps one of the most crucial shifts that needs to be embedded in our communities, is that if women and children choose to report or reveal abuse against them, they are believed.

This is why outrage erupted across the nation and from the ABC’s Q and A panel on Monday night, to an avalanche of horrified commentators, in and outside the sector, and millions of ordinary Australians on social media, when Prime Minister Scott Morrison appointed One Nation leader and Senator Pauline Hanson to deputy chair another government investigation into the family law courts.
Hanson told the ABC last week, straight after the announcement of her appointment, that “there are people out there who are nothing but liars. I am hearing too many cases where parents are using domestic violence to stop the other parent seeing their children.”

Her obvious bias, demonstrated by her reference to “personal experience” of her son’s family court case involving domestic violence allegations as evidence, was too much for many campaigners.

Prominent anti-violence activist Rosie Batty said Hanson’s appointment was “completely unacceptable” and that Hanson’s “obvious agenda” made her unsuitable for the position. #[Rosie Batty is a former Australian of The Year for her work in Domestic Violence - her son was bashed to death by her ex-husband]

Hayley Foster, chief executive of Women’s Safety NSW, succinctly nails why the Hanson appointment is so bitterly opposed by so many. “My heart sank. My fingers hurt. I couldn’t believe they would do it. It seemed so unnecessary and cruel. I thought of the women who would have to front that inquiry and front … a woman who believes they are lying.”

“Men who use violence will be emboldened by the rhetoric on women lying in the family law system. Boosting the men’s right propaganda of Pauline Hanson is only going to further endanger women and children,” tweeted Jess Hill, anti-family violence campaigner and author of the powerful and influential new book on family violence, See What You made Me Do on Tuesday.

Bolstered by public perception of family court as anti-men and of a high-profile Senator echoing those sentiments positioned as deputy chair of a Family Court inquiry, the words: “they won’t believe you anyway. “I’ll tell them you’re lying. You’re not taking my kids”, will surely have even greater resonance.
The news of this enquiry reinforces incorrect but widely held ideas the family court system is biased against men and driving men to suicide daily, as Hanson has claimed.

Hanson’s One Nation colleague, Malcolm Roberts, expressed the view, on camera, that the family court system causes men to “lash out in violence”. His baseless claim was, in turn, lashed succinctly by the Law Council of Australia as “irresponsible and plain stupid”.
The reality is the opposite.

A leading research piece on false domestic violence allegations referenced in Jess Hill’s book, now widely cited as the “Canadian study”, found that non-custodial parents, usually fathers, are most likely to make false allegations, making up 43 percent of total claims. Even neighbours and relatives outnumber false claims by mothers, who constitute only 14 percent of false allegations.
Those are the real numbers based on rigorous research.
But now the focus has swung even further the wrong way, with the burden of proof sitting squarely with the victim, when the spotlight needs to be directly on the perpetrator.

“This is a step backwards. When an Australian Senator accuses women of lying about family violence, it reinforces the difficulty for victim-survivors coming forward and creates an environment where they feel they will not be believed.

At NTV our number one priority is the safety of women and children. Hanson’s claims and the decision to have her deputy chair of this inquiry flies in the face of that safety. We join many loud voices in saying Ms Hanson’s clear bias renders her unfit to lead a review of the family court system. Her public statements on family violence are incorrect, ill-informed and dangerous,” said No to Violence CEO, Jacqui Watt.
But nuggets of hope pop up in the strangest places. While I seethed over the prioritisation of the political agendas of the powerful and their cynical indifference to women and children’s safety, a scroll through Netflix provided me with a compelling counterpoint.

Last week I stumbled across the Netflix series , which, like many, including feminist writer Clementine Ford, I binged in delight. It’s based on a true story of a rape investigation that went, “brilliantly wrong” then “brilliantly right”. It delicately unpacks how easily a victim can be disbelieved, and the terrible impact it has. It shows how the male-dominated system bludgeons already damaged victims.
Sure, watching TV won’t save the world, but at least popular culture is doing the job of putting an alternative view to Hanson’s damaging nonsense to a broad audience. That’s a good thing, a little bit of hope.
(In my opinion, it’s must-watch TV. Do find it if you can. Also, Toni Collette’s performance tears it up!).

The Hanson appointment is a step backwards and heartbreaking for so many working so hard for change. But that simply makes the push for change more urgent.
The need for voices of dissent, around things like the appointment of a biased politician to a pointless and potentially damaging family court review, must become louder in response.
Hopefully, this debate will end up amplifying the that fact most people claiming to be family violence victims are telling the truth.
That’s the wonderful thing about hope. There’s always more of it.
If you need help addressing your use of family violence, call the Men’s Referral Service is at 1300 766 491. Lines open 24/7

https://ntv.org.au/hanson-hits-where-it-hurts-but-theres-always-more-hope/

"Senator Pauline Hanson has recently argued fathers get a raw deal from the family court, saying mothers often make up accusations of family violence to deny fathers contact with their children. These unsupported claims perpetuate a form of victim blaming and may make women who have experienced family violence reluctant to speak out for fear of being disbelieved.
Yet this seems to be what’s pushing the latest parliamentary inquiry into family courts, of which Hanson is deputy chair.
It is, in fact, extremely rare for fathers to be denied contact with their children. This only happened in 3% of all court orders in 2014."

https://theconversation.com/the-family-court-does-need-reform-but-not-the-way-pauline-hanson-thinks-125728