Hilary or Donald

[good4whatAlesU]

I disagree.

By choice people, through religion or choice can deny themselves access to certain civil liberties available to them. Not all civil liberties are taken up by everyone, but in a great country like Australia, they are available to you.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

That is not a freedom. It's a restraint (by choice).

Nighty night gentlemen. Enjoy your civil liberties tomorrow. Or choose not to take them. Up to you.

How is it a restraint if you choose to.( have you been reading WEAL's manual on unions & train driving ? )

Just because you dont like the idea of someone covering themselves , does t not mean that person has dropped any rights or civil liberties

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I disagree.

By choice people, through religion or choice can deny themselves access to certain civil liberties available to them. Not all civil liberties are taken up by everyone, but in a great country like Australia, they are available to you.

The choose to. Which part of " They choose to" .is the problem for you. Sure, they may be available, but there is no law that says you must follow them.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

What people choose or don't choose to do within the law is up to them.

People can choose to access a civil liberty available to them or they can choose not to.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Lets put them in a huge cage with this lot, lock the doors and and dont let them out until they come to an amicable agreement.

http://fierth.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/god-hates-****-westboro-baptist-church-picket-funeral.jpg

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

What people choose or don't choose to do within the law is up to them.

People can choose to access a civil liberty available to them or they can choose not to.

Choosing ( or wanting ) to be covered up is a civil liberty. Its that simple

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Being able to walk down the street freely showing your face and identify is a civil liberty. Which under Australian law can be waived by choice.

Personally I feel it better if more people avail themselves of the liberty than not.

 

[manticle]

We all know how you feel. You've made it abundantly clear.
As an unmuddied lake.
Clear as an azure sky on a summer's day.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Being able to walk down the street freely showing your face and identify is a civil liberty. Which under Australian law can be waived by choice.

Personally I feel it better if more people avail themselves of the liberty than not.

Which liberty ?

The liberty to be able to walk down the street fully covered

or

The liberty to be able to walk down the street uncovered

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Restrictions placed upon you (indeed even if chosen) are not a societal liberty.

As I have stated, it is a restriction in communication to fully cover your face and body. That is a waiver of liberty, made by choice. Almost exclusively by women.

 

[manticle]

By wearing clothing, are we waiving our civil liberty to walk, tackle unfettered, through the main streets.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Restrictions placed upon you (indeed even if chosen) are not a societal liberty.

As I have stated, it is a restriction in communication to fully cover your face and body. That is a waiver of liberty, made by choice. Almost exclusively by women.

How is it a restriction in community...

What if everyone in the community where fully covered ?


You still have not explained why walking down the street fully covered is

A). waiving of your civile liberties

B.) restrictive

 

[good4whatAlesU]

No because our identity and ability to communicate are not hampered.

Over and out guys. Life to live, liberties to enjoy.

Have a great day.

 

[manticle]

I communicate tacklewise

 

[goomboogo]

I communicate tacklewise

I remember the days of porkspin. Now that was one unambiguous form of commnication.

 

[goomboogo]

No because our identity and ability to communicate are not hampered.

Over and out guys. Life to live, liberties to enjoy.

Have a great day.

I would guess that if some bloke walked up to me on the street, waiving his tackle around, it would hamper effective communication. It may be different for you but I would probably find it a little distracting.

I'm interested to know how you define civil liberties because this seems to be the source of the confusion within this discussion.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I remember the days of porkspin. Now that was one unambiguous form of commnication.

Wonder if there is a Muslim version...

You spin me right round baby right roundlike a record spinning right round

You can get it Here --> Click here...I dare you

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I would guess that if some bloke walked up to me on the street, waiving his tackle around, it would hamper effective communication. It may be different for you but I would probably find it a little distracting.

I'm interested to know how you define civil liberties because this seems to be the source of the confusion within this discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties


Australia[SIZE=small][edit][/SIZE]
Although Australia does not have an enshrined Bill of Rights or similar binding legal document, civil liberties are assumed as protected through a series of rules and conventions. Australia was a key player and signatory to the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948)
The Constitution of Australia (1900) does offer very limited protection of rights:

• the right to freedom of religion and;
• the right to freedom from discrimination based on out-of-state residence (historical prejudice based upon residence within one state affecting treatment within another)

Certain High Court interpretations of the Constitution have allowed for implied rights such as freedom of speech and the right to vote to be established, however others such as freedom of assembly and freedom of association are yet to be identified.
Refugee Issues
Within the past decade Australia has experienced increasing contention regarding its treatment of those seeking asylum. Although Australia is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention (1951), successive governments have demonstrated an increasing tightening of borders; particularly against those who seek passage via small water vessels.
The Abbott Government (2013) like its predecessors (the Gillard and Howard Governments) has encountered particular difficulty curbing asylum seekers via sea, increasingly identified as "illegal immigration". The recent involvement of the Australian Navy in refugee rescue operations has many human rights groups such as Amnesty International concerned over the "militarisation" of treatment of refugees. The current "turn-back" policy is particularly divisive, as it involves placing refugees in government lifeboats and turning them towards Indonesia. Despite opposition however, the Abbott government's response has so far seen a reduction in the amount of potential refugees undertaking the hazardous cross to Australia, which is argued by the government as an indicator for its policy success.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Not being religious myself I was under the belief that religion comes from the soul not the clothes that is worn, does it make a woman less religious by not wearing what her partner forces her to wear.
Remember those women who wear the full monty have come from countries where the women are discriminated against in the worst possible way, how many murders by family members have been committed in those western countries where the children of immigrants or refugees have seen the freedom the women have in those countries and want the same freedom, to marry some one who they want to marry, not who their father wants them to marry.
It is all about control by the man, if what Lambie has put forward will go some way to give a woman respect and freedom then I am for it

 

[LAGERFRENZY]

Then as Manticle has already said why is the legislation only to be activated if the threat of terror level is raised to "probable"? It is a simplistic piece of dog whistling being introduced by a yokel and thus far supported by the likes of One Nation and Bernadi. Women's Rights my arse.