A niqab wearer, KKK hood wearer, and motorbike helmet wearer enter a Parliament House...

[bilby]

I can find not one recorded instance of a person being permitted to enter the Australian Federal Parliament building with their face concealed. Not one Muslim woman has ever exercised this non-existent 'right'.

The problem of wider discrimination against motorcycle helmet wearers at petrol stations is real, but of dramatically lesser importance in ensuring public safety than defusing the current hysteria being whipped up against Muslims.

I despise Islam; but I despise fascism even more. Singling out a particular religion as somehow 'un-Australian' is, frankly, about as un-Australian as it gets. Particularly when the excuse for this bigotry is a phantom; Nobody is trying to get into Parliament House wearing a burqa, except the morons who are trying to demonstrate that this is a thing. It's not a thing. It is pure fascist propaganda, and needs to be exposed as such.

The point is not about how many people are 'trying', but that the rules are fair. I've never seen a woman in a burka in Australia, so it doesn't surprise me that I haven't seen one try to enter Parliament, either. I've seen some women in niqabs though, and I would hope that whenever someone has a rule, and there is a good reason for that rule, religious exceptions are not made.

I agree with you that rules should be fair.

However if you consider the enshrining in law of fair rules to be so important, that it is acceptable to allow to go unopposed a campaign for such rules that has the additional effect of inciting irrational fear and violence, against an identifiable ethnic or religious minority, then we will have to disagree. Particularly when the 'fair rules' campaign appears to be a secondary issue for so many who espouse it. Either they are unimaginably dense, and cannot see the effect their campaign is having on public opinion; or they are being manipulative, sneaky assholes, who are hiding their campaign of vilification behind a façade of equity.

Fairness is an important goal; the discouragement of unjust discrimination is, in my opinion, a more important goal.

 

[bilby]

It upsets me when people get special rules because they harbour particular delusions or come from a particular culture. If she can wear a niqab and he can carry a kirpan into the court room, I should be allowed to do the same. It is blatantly unjust to require otherwise. The only special rights should be things like handicap parking, things that have an actual rational basis.

I support this sort of protest, and to try to stop such a thing because it "criticizes muslims" doesn't wash. If these people were not demanding special rights, we wouldn't have the need for the protest.

'These people' do not appear to be demanding special rights, any more than atheists are demanding that everyone stops saying 'Merry Christmas'.

The protest is not evidence of Muslims in Australia demanding special rights; it is evidence of the neo-fascists in Australia attempting to whip up hysteria.

Your objection - "If these people were not demanding special rights, we wouldn't have the need for the protest" is EXACTLY the response they are trying to elicit.

If they simply wish to oppose some actual call for special rights, then where is the evidence of that call? Where is the evidence that anyone has ever sought admission to Parliament House, and in the process has demanded special treatment? If such a thing had occurred, we wouldn't hear the end of it; The individual or individuals involved would be known, and their statements of entitlement would be quoted - just as the individuals and their statements of their claimed reasons for their actions are known in the case of this 'protest'.

Do you not think that it is odd that these protesters haven't mentioned the names of any person or persons to whom this supposed 'special right' has been granted in the past?

For a person or group to be unjustly favoured, there needs to be an actual instance of unjust favouritism - not just some vague concern that IF such a person was to come forward, she COULD be unjustly favoured.

 

[Lugubert]

BTW do the liberals fighting for the right of Sikhs to wear kripans actually know why the practice originated? It was so that Sikhs would always be ready to chop off any Muslim head whenever Muslims tried to persecute them. The direct physical answer to Jihad.

That's a bit twisted. The kirpan is for defending your life only, not for attacks. I think that "tried to persecute them" isn't a sufficient reason, as long as mortal danger isn't imminent.

In schools or elsewhere: Sihks are taught and know that they aren't even allowed to draw their kirpan to show it. School children who are asked by other students to show their kirpan, know to reject the proposal. The last case I read about was of a boy who was permitted to carry his kirpan to school, but concealed under his clothes. Others may hide a symbolic miniature in their turban. I find it highly improbable that a kirpan would be used inappropriately; in such a case, I suppose the culprit would be expelled from the community.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

BTW do the liberals fighting for the right of Sikhs to wear kripans actually know why the practice originated? It was so that Sikhs would always be ready to chop off any Muslim head whenever Muslims tried to persecute them. The direct physical answer to Jihad.

That's a bit twisted. The kirpan is for defending your life only, not for attacks. I think that "tried to persecute them" isn't a sufficient reason, as long as mortal danger isn't imminent.

In schools or elsewhere: Sihks are taught and know that they aren't even allowed to draw their kirpan to show it. School children who are asked by other students to show their kirpan, know to reject the proposal. The last case I read about was of a boy who was permitted to carry his kirpan to school, but concealed under his clothes. Others may hide a symbolic miniature in their turban. I find it highly improbable that a kirpan would be used inappropriately; in such a case, I suppose the culprit would be expelled from the community.

So, you're OK with students bringing knives to school as long as they make an effort to hide the knife and promise not to use it?

What exactly would be the problem with all the Sikh students bringing a symbolic miniature instead of the real one?

 

[Sabine Grant]

That's a bit twisted. The kirpan is for defending your life only, not for attacks. I think that "tried to persecute them" isn't a sufficient reason, as long as mortal danger isn't imminent.

In schools or elsewhere: Sihks are taught and know that they aren't even allowed to draw their kirpan to show it. School children who are asked by other students to show their kirpan, know to reject the proposal. The last case I read about was of a boy who was permitted to carry his kirpan to school, but concealed under his clothes. Others may hide a symbolic miniature in their turban. I find it highly improbable that a kirpan would be used inappropriately; in such a case, I suppose the culprit would be expelled from the community.

So, you're OK with students bringing knives to school as long as they make an effort to hide the knife and promise not to use it?

What exactly would be the problem with all the Sikh students bringing a symbolic miniature instead of the real one?

Reading Lugubert's post carefully while paying attention to which statement he was replying to, it appears to me that his intention was to CORRECT Hinduwoman's interpretation of why Sihks are wearing a kirpan. I am not sure how you came to such assuming and loaded question :

So, you're OK with students bringing knives to school as long as they make an effort to hide the knife and promise not to use it?

Also not sure why you would address him with another assuming question as if he would have conveyed that he has a problem with Sihk students bringing a symbolic miniature kirpan :

What exactly would be the problem with all the Sikh students bringing a symbolic miniature instead of the real one?

Anyhow, to go back to the OP : I agree with what Bilby developed on.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

'These people' do not appear to be demanding special rights, any more than atheists are demanding that everyone stops saying 'Merry Christmas'.

.... huh? A demonstration of the special right is central to their protest. Did I read that wrong? The niqab is apparently allowed to be worn, while the motorcycle helmet and KKK hood were not allowed to be worn.

The protesters were stopped between Old Parliament House and the Parliament House forecourt and told by police that the men wearing the Ku Klux Klan hat and motorcycle helmet would be forced to remove their facial coverings but the person in the niqab would be allowed to keep theirs on.

In contrast, I am not aware of anyone anywhere being told by authorities that they are not allowed to say "Merry Christmas".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Reading Lugubert's post carefully while paying attention to which statement he was replying to, it appears to me that his intention was to CORRECT Hinduwoman's interpretation of why Sihks are wearing a kirpan. I am not sure how you came to such assuming and loaded question :

So what? I'm saying that the reason that they're wearing it shouldn't be relevant. Right now, the policy is that they are allowed to wear their ceremonial knife to school, it's a policy that some students take advantage of and it's a policy that I disagree with. Students shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons at school no matter what their rationale for carrying that weapon might be. This isn't comparable to bilby's hypothetical right that nobody except fear-mongers is exercising, it's something that students are actually doing right now.

I do not consider the "I want to wear this knife to school because of my religion" rationale to be any more valid than the "I want to wear this knife to school because it goes well with my shoes" rationale. Neither should be a valid excuse for s student to bring a knife into a school.

 

[Unbeatable]

So what?

So perhaps "so what" should have been your response to Lugubert's post, instead of what you actually wrote. His post was apparently a tangent, not a post expressing any opinions on the policy in question.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So what?

So perhaps "so what" should have been your response to Lugubert's post, instead of what you actually wrote. His post was apparently a tangent, not a post expressing any opinions on the policy in question.

Fair point. I responded as if he was advocating the policy as opposed to explaining it.

 

[hinduwoman]

BTW do the liberals fighting for the right of Sikhs to wear kripans actually know why the practice originated? It was so that Sikhs would always be ready to chop off any Muslim head whenever Muslims tried to persecute them. The direct physical answer to Jihad.

That's a bit twisted. The kirpan is for defending your life only, not for attacks. I think that "tried to persecute them" isn't a sufficient reason, as long as mortal danger isn't imminent.

In schools or elsewhere: Sihks are taught and know that they aren't even allowed to draw their kirpan to show it. School children who are asked by other students to show their kirpan, know to reject the proposal. The last case I read about was of a boy who was permitted to carry his kirpan to school, but concealed under his clothes. Others may hide a symbolic miniature in their turban. I find it highly improbable that a kirpan would be used inappropriately; in such a case, I suppose the culprit would be expelled from the community.

In Mughal times persecution by muslims of sikhs was a situation of mortal peril for Sikhs, until they managed to carve out their own empire.

The symbolic miniature is what I am speaking of; since the weapon is not actually meant to be used --- and where does in modern USA, appropriate or inappropriate use of a bladed weapon in a school mean? --- why not a plastic one? He can wear it openly at his belt without any objections.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's a bit twisted. The kirpan is for defending your life only, not for attacks. I think that "tried to persecute them" isn't a sufficient reason, as long as mortal danger isn't imminent.

In schools or elsewhere: Sihks are taught and know that they aren't even allowed to draw their kirpan to show it. School children who are asked by other students to show their kirpan, know to reject the proposal. The last case I read about was of a boy who was permitted to carry his kirpan to school, but concealed under his clothes. Others may hide a symbolic miniature in their turban. I find it highly improbable that a kirpan would be used inappropriately; in such a case, I suppose the culprit would be expelled from the community.

In Mughal times persecution by muslims of sikhs was a situation of mortal peril for Sikhs, until they managed to carve out their own empire.

The symbolic miniature is what I am speaking of; since the weapon is not actually meant to be used --- and where does in modern USA, appropriate or inappropriate use of a bladed weapon in a school mean? --- why not a plastic one? He can wear it openly at his belt without any objections.

I've worked with many Sikhs in the Middle East and in the UK. I haven't seen any of them carrying a their ceremonial blades around. Maybe they keep in concealed. An appropriate use would be to cut vegetables etc in inappropriate use would be to stab someone.

 

[Lugubert]

An appropriate use would be to cut vegetables etc in inappropriate use would be to stab someone.

On the contrary! It is inappropriate to unsheathe it in any other circumstances than defending your life.

 

[whichphilosophy]

An appropriate use would be to cut vegetables etc in inappropriate use would be to stab someone.

On the contrary! It is inappropriate to unsheathe it in any other circumstances than defending your life.

Most people who carry a knife will say they use it for defence. The Seikhs don't wear these in the UAE or Qatar where I have worked because it is illegal. Some local Arabs retain the traditional daggers as ornaments but in this day and age they don't have these on their belt. They may stick them on the walls of their living rooms. My comment was on appropriate use not whether it's unsheathed. I doubt if any carry them through airports etc.