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

[happydappy2]

https://x.com/PaulineHansonOz/status/1992886488300966251?s=20

She has a point-can women wearing a burka be employed or will they be reliant on the state? (or someone else.) How does a full face covering work with facial recognition cameras? Can a woman in a burka enter a bank, when everyone else has to remove face coverings?

I imagine this is a question the UK needs to address pretty soon as well.

Again - I don’t lie and I don’t appreciate being told I am, or that I must be confused. Many other women and girls do wear various forms of headscarves also, but I was referring to the women in my area who wear black robes from head to toe, with a full veil and only eyes visible (ie a burka).

FFS, I don’t agree with Pauline Hanson’s politics, and I was simply detailing what occurs in my community.

what's your suggestion then?
It is already illegal to keep someone a prisoner in their home you know?
By allowing the practice of wearing burkas to continue, we risk more women & girls being forced to accept it (& society as a whole.)
We can say-no. That is not in line with the British way of life, we don't want that to become mainstream over here, so we are banning it. At some point in the future we will have to deal with this issue

Agree. I suggest we pass a law saying that every man whose wife/daughter wears the burka must go about in public blindfolded. He will need someone to lead him about, but probably his wife might do that. Or he can stay at home. Or he can persuade his wife/daughter that the burka is unnecessary to Islam and get his imam to preach this in his mosque.

I’m absolutely not suggesting my experiences are the only acceptable ones, as that would be silly. What I was saying is your experience - of seeing multiple women in burqas out and about at schools and shopping centres and even young girls - sounded an extreme one for Queensland. I know there are areas where migrants tend to cluster, particularly in Brisbane, but even so.

"I was referring to the women in my area who wear black robes from head to toe, with a full veil and only eyes visible (ie a burka).'

If eyes are visible, it's probably a niqab rather than a burqa, but I think where burqas are banned, niqabs are generally banned as well so it doesn't make that much difference anyway.

Oh wow you just reminded me about the Reverse Burka!

I can't remember if I thought it up myself or read it somewhere, but the idea was that instead of covering women up apart from a strip at their eyes their eyes so men couldn't see them, you could get the same result much cheaper and faster by taking just that strip and covering up the men's eyes instead 😂

If we don’t ban this stuff what we are saying as a society is that we will be complicit in the control of men over women and we just vaguely hope your husband will stop doing it. If you ban stuff it just eventually becomes increasingly inconvenient to do it. If we ignore growing numbers of girls and women in niqabs and burkas we normalise it. We make it normal to stick younger and younger girls into niqabs. This isn’t happening to boys, just girls. We are complicit in the degradation of females. We haven’t banned it things haven’t improved have they? So how is more of the same going to help?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15326433/KHADIJA-KHAN-burqa-choice-Muslim-women.html

Does "Ban the Burqa" mean criminalise the women who wear it?

If not, what does it mean? How does the "ban" work in practice?

There are some women here who wear more than the women in the picture - they wear full leather and metal-looking masks. Also gloves and shoe coverings, of all things. As I said upthread, a daughter was fully covered in year 6. I just can’t understand why it is acceptable.

It's not.

I think the idea may originate with a Moghul princess c. 16th century Delhi, who suggested that if men could not look at women without behaving badly they should wear blindfolds.
I love 'reverse burka'. I think we should do it.

@WTFAustraliaThisIsWhatHappensHereNow That's true where I live as well. As to the suggestion that unmarried schoolgirls are unlikely to wear the burka, @Sugarnspicenallthingsnaice, where I live primary school girls are in burkas - though not covering the face. I think they look so sad. And it is utterly alien to their cultures, too. (Not Aus., UK)

Denmark have done it, and a few other places. There’s probably an outline of how somewhere.

All that may be true - I don't know who Pauline Hanson is, not being from Australia. Nevertheless, bad people with bad ideas sometimes support good causes, and in this case, whatever the motives, the banning of the burka is a good cause. Various majority Muslim countries have banned the burka, both for the reasons Hanson gives - security - and because its use encourages militant Islamism. The prevention of both of these are good causes and have the bonus of freeing women of restrictive clothing and teaching Muslim men not to make assumptions about women based on what they are wearing.
GC women have been accused of cuddling up to the right when they have fought for women's rights over TiMs.

Same.

Though I note that uncovered face is hijab or abaya. When my boys were small there were families at soft play where mum would be in niqab, dad in shorts & t-shirt, but she was the one who had to wrangle the kids in the ball pit. Ridiculous.

It should be banned. It is not religious, but generally cultural, therefore if you are living in the UK, you should follow the norms of this society.

It is a barrier to integration, to education, to work. Why should the UK pay benefits to someone who is potentially unable to work due to their mode of dress.

Anyone under the age of 16 should also be protected/banned from any kind of religious or cultural covering.

Headscarves for adults are absolutely fine btw.

if I go to my bank to withdraw a large sum of cash I have to produce PHOTO ID. If I wear a burrito sorry I mean a burka or face mask can I get my money without showing my face? Just asking? I regularly withdraw large sums of cash since theiving Reeves came for my money. Any thoughts ?

You don't save women from people telling them what to do by telling them what to do.

Anyway the way these things work is complex. Some burka-wearing women will believe they have a free choice in the matter. Some, if banned from wearing a burka, will not be allowed (or not feel able) to leave the house.

There are plenty of socially-conditioned fashions in western culture that feminists may believe are harmful to women, but we don't go around trying to ban them!

Where I live there are currently far more men than women going round with their faces covered, and not just on cold days. And men with covered faces are much more threatening than women dressed similarly. For some reason the acceptability of this isn't a major topic of political debate however.

Given that Pauline Hanson wore the burqa with her legs and skirt poking out, she achieved her aim of maximum social media visibility. She’s being talked about! Her motive is only to increase her profile and that of her party. That’s it. She knows she has zero chance of even tabling, let alone passing, such a Bill in the Senate. It’s simple political grandstanding. Her action was censured by every other Senator, even those as conservative as she is.

But we are also talking about banning the burka - and I am becoming persuaded that would be a good idea both for Hanson's reason, security and prevention of spread of Islamism, but also because it will eventually benefit women in cities such as the one in which I reside. Denmark has done it and so have several Muslim majority countries.

So, whatever her motives (and I thought the legs was a bit silly tbh, do it properly or not at all) Hanson has raised the debate. A good outcome from a (possibly) bad act. (Not sure why it's racist to wear a burka?)

Tax the Burqa might work better. That's a standard way to disincentivise personal choices that have wider social costs without actually making them illegal.

Help families make their own choice whether it's really that important to veil their female members.

Use the proceeds to fund support services for women in veiled cultures who are suffering domestic abuse or who want to be able to work and be financially independent.

(For fairness, we should probably also tax Western cultural dress that disadvantages women - high heels and stupid tiny pockets get my vote!)

As an Australian, I can tell you that Pauline Hanson is the Nigel Farage of Australian politics. She is deeply racist; said "we are in danger of being swamped by Asians", has said multiculturalism is bad, fled to the UK for a few years but came back and admitted it was because London was no longer as white as it was (yes, admitted this). She is far more toxic than Farage. She also has long attacked Australian Family Law system and complains that 'women get it too easy' (her son was accused of domestic abuse of his ex-wife). She thinks most women make false allegations.

The ONLY reason she wants the burqa banned is because those who wear it are Muslim and black. She is like Farage. Doesn't give a fuck about women, just hates black people and Muslims.

This was an attention-seeking stunt from her. She does these every so often when attention her is waning. She genuinely does not care at all about women.

"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

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/