Hilary or Donald

[wide eyed and legless]

**** all to do with terror, as mentioned previously why introduce 'Anyone forcing a woman or child to wear a burqa will be imprisoned and fined, it is aimed to give the women freedom of choice.

 

[LAGERFRENZY]

Everything to do with fear of terror threats the way I read it:

http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/jacqui-lambie-proposes-full-face-coverings-ban-if-terror-threat-raised/news-story/3f86708b2ee6161e13140cb5b3825edd

 

[manticle]

**** all to do with terror, as mentioned previously why introduce 'Anyone forcing a woman or child to wear a burqa will be imprisoned and fined, it is aimed to give the women freedom of choice.

Sweetener.

It's directly related to the official terror threat level. You do know that, don't you? If the threat falls below probable, the face covering ban also is removed.

Why do you think Bernardi would support anything to do with women's freedom?

And how on earth do you prove parents force kids to wear clothing of a particular type? I wasn't given much of a choice in my garments when I was a youngster.

 

[manticle]

How do you promote freedom of choice by banning something anyway?

 

[good4whatAlesU]

Had a great day out.

... mmm I'll have a go. How about;

"The equal right for all citizens * to enjoy the freedoms** of society, to choose a government for ourselves made of elected representatives, to form a constitution and to live peacefully***"

*regardless of gender, race or peaceful religion".
**no class divisions, free speech (including the freedom of unimpeded public communication), access to public places and amenities, access to education, access to uncensored information and a free media, ability to purchase and own land and access employment opportunities...."

***within the laws fitting within our constitution and agreed upon by our elected parliament"

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Not banned, freedom of choice, the women must be given freedom of choice. Don't you understand women have to be shown respect, not told to wear what the men want them to wear?

 

[manticle]

@GFWAU: Why do you keep banging on about civil liberties (as if wearing a piece of cloth negates anything from your list).

Senator Lambie wants to introduce legislation that prevents any person wearing any item of clothing that covers their face in a public place IF/WHEN the official terror threat is probable or higher (which it currently is). If that threat drops, the ban is no longer in place and people can wear whatever shit they want, wherever they want.

 

[manticle]

Not banned, freedom of choice, the women must be given freedom of choice. Don't you understand women have to be shown respect, not told to wear what the men want them to wear?

Of course I do but that's not the point of the legislation. And it's a ban so freedom of choice is the very opposite.

All that will happen is that those women who are under the thumb of a dictatorial male partner will be forbidden to leave the house.

Less freedom, not more.

 

[good4whatAlesU]

@GFWAU: Why do you keep banging on about civil liberties (as if wearing a piece of cloth negates anything from your list).
Senator Lambie wants to introduce legislation that prevents any person wearing any item of clothing that covers their face in a public place IF/WHEN the off official terror threat is probable or higher (which it currently is). If that threat drops, the threat is no longer in place and people can wear whatever shit they want, wherever they want.

Wearing a face covering garment impedes on the freedom of unimpeded communication. If some people (women) through religion choose to waive that freedom it is their right.

Just for the record. Lambie is wrong. We want people to voluntarily access the wonderful freedoms of our country - force is not the way forward. I don't agree with people waiving their freedoms, but that is their choice. So long as they are peaceful.

 

[Bridges]

All that will happen is that those women who are under the thumb of a dictatorial male partner will be forbidden to leave the house.

Less freedom, not more.

This is exactly why it is a bad idea.

 

[manticle]

Yes it is their right, a point most of have been trying make for what seems like years.

I get that you don't like the burqua and related garments.

I don't much either. I also have a problem with the symbolism of the bindi.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Not a bad idea? No one knows how it will pan out, nothing is known until it is tried. Burqa doesn't frighten me and I am sure as an ex military personnel it doesn't frighten Lambie, women can wear what they like my wife does but those wearing the burqa are they wearing what they like?

 

[manticle]

If we tried every idea just to know how it pans out then we'd be fucked.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Everything ever tried is base on an idea which someone has put forward.

 

[LAGERFRENZY]

Pretty much what is going on in the US until they get sick of it and impeach the dick that is suggesting them.

 

[Rocker1986]

Burqas don't frighten me but it's like talking to a letterbox with eyes. It's cold and uninviting. Their religion also doesn't require that they wear it so those using that reasoning are misinformed.

 

[manticle]

Everything ever tried is base on an idea which someone has put forward.

Yes but ideas get vetted/rejected. We don't just try everything because someone thought of it.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Banning the way you dress based on a terrorism thread is just ******* stupid

Talk about the far right going to the point of stupidity

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

in SOME cases, not all WEAL

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Yes but ideas get vetted/rejected. We don't just try everything becausd someone thought of it.

It hasn't been approved or rejected as yet it is a bill put forward to be voted on.

 

[manticle]

And?

People discuss the potential pros and cons which is what we're doing