Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
The main opposition for the burka ban seems to come from shrill do-gooders like Christine Milne rather than from the Islamic community.

The full face covering burka is NOT a requirement of the Islamic faith, obviously, as very few Muslim women actually wear it so it comes down to a matter of choice. We should therefore be free to impose the same restrictions on identity concealment as we wold impose on anyone else who chooses to conceal their identity in public.
 
SirRumpole said:
The main opposition for the burka ban seems to come from shrill do-gooders like Christine Milne rather than from the Islamic community.

The full face covering burka is NOT a requirement of the Islamic faith, obviously, as very few Muslim women actually wear it so it comes down to a matter of choice. We should therefore be free to impose the same restrictions on identity concealment as we wold impose on anyone else who chooses to conceal their identity in public.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they would let a bunch of blokes, wearing full face motor cycle helmets, walk in?
 
SirRumpole said:
The full face covering burka is NOT a requirement of the Islamic faith, obviously, as very few Muslim women actually wear it so it comes down to a matter of choice. We should therefore be free to impose the same restrictions on identity concealment as we wold impose on anyone else who chooses to conceal their identity in public.
Click to expand...

Even if it was a requirement of the Islamic "faith", I still see no reason to allow it.

This is Australia, we make our own rules and we require people to have their face clearly visible in some situations and there are justifiable reasons why this is required. End of story. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
Even if it was a requirement of the Islamic "faith", I still see no reason to allow it.

This is Australia, we make our own rules and we require people to have their face clearly visible in some situations and there are justifiable reasons why this is required. End of story. :2twocents
Click to expand...

+ 1...I fully agree.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Even if it was a requirement of the Islamic "faith", I still see no reason to allow it.

This is Australia, we make our own rules and we require people to have their face clearly visible in some situations and there are justifiable reasons why this is required. End of story. :2twocents
Click to expand...

Absolutely. My point was that there is no argument along "religious discrimination" lines.
 
Can anybody inform me as to whether, up to this point in time; has some one wearing a burka ever been seated bin the public viewing areas of parliament house?

Mind you though, I did spot Mathias Cormann trying to sneak out the back entrance in one just the other day, on his way to a financial advice seminar, I believe.
 
orr said:
Can anybody inform me as to whether, up to this point in time; has some one wearing a burka ever been seated bin the public viewing areas of parliament house?

Mind you though, I did spot Mathias Cormann trying to sneak out the back entrance in one just the other day, on his way to a financial advice seminar, I believe.
Click to expand...

Not that I know of, which although I agree with their sentiment, the stupidity of bringing the idea up when it's not necessary to do so is obvious.
 
SirRumpole said:
Not that I know of, which although I agree with their sentiment, the stupidity of bringing the idea up when it's not necessary to do so is obvious.
Click to expand...
Before you get too carried away with how unnecessary it may or may not have been, it was reported on ABC's "PM" program this evening that the interim ruling was in response to a widespread rumour as follows:

(from PM this evening)

MARK COLVIN: A rumour about burka clad protesters appears to be behind yesterday's controversial decision to segregate people with face coverings in Parliament House.

There's been widespread derision and condemnation for the measures.

The Prime Minister has asked the Speaker to rethink the decision.

But sources have told PM that it was a bid to stop about 10 protesters disrupting Question Time.
Click to expand...

Additional reports indicate the possibility that around ten protestors (as distinct from Muslim women) were planning to create mayhem in the parliament.

Perhaps you'd prefer they'd have been permitted to go ahead and wreak havoc with their identities concealed.
 
Julia said:
Before you get too carried away with how unnecessary it may or may not have been, it was reported on ABC's "PM" program this evening that the interim ruling was in response to a widespread rumour as follows:

(from PM this evening)



Additional reports indicate the possibility that around ten protestors (as distinct from Muslim women) were planning to create mayhem in the parliament.

Perhaps you'd prefer they'd have been permitted to go ahead and wreak havoc with their identities concealed.
Click to expand...

Thanks Julia,

This puts the Speaker's decision and Tony Abbott's clarification/opposition to burqa ban in perspective.

Mice will make mischief.

And then there is female genital mutilation which goes hand in hand with burgadom.

gg
 
noco said:
The costs bandied around are 12 subs from Japan $20 to $25 billion.
12 subs made in Australia $50 to $80 billion.

I should imagine the security system would be secretive only to Australia.

I believe you are talking in the extreme with your statement of comparison.

If it was coming out of your pocket would be prepared to pay the difference?

Just imagine what we could do with the difference in cost......How many dams could we build or how many kilometers of highways could we construct?

The Labor Party reduced out defense spending to 1.8% of GDP....the lowest level since 1938 and now Bill Shorten wants to spend an extra $30 to $55 billion to appease the CFMEU......It really does not make sense.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._the_lost_soldier_still_fighting_world_war_2/
Click to expand...

Buy the best subs

THANKS to Brendan Nicholson for the most interesting report about retired rear admiral Peter Briggs’s criticisms of the Japanese Soryu-class submarines, which are being considered as a replacement of the Collins class (“Navy veterans critical of Japanese subs”, 1/10). It is worrying that we are considering the Soryu when it has smaller crew quarters and a shorter range than the Collins.

I agree with him when he says we should be considering a nuclear design, such as the French Barracuda, which doesn’t need refuelling for many years. Surely with our vast shoreline we need vessels with extended range rather than the reverse.

In 1990 we could have bought the British nuclear Vanguard submarines for about the same cost as the Collins. But because of our antinuclear policy these were never considered.

Is history going to repeat itself, or are we going to get real, start afresh, and consider revoking our antinuclear stand so we can look at the best submarine to suit our needs? Right now the US navy is building another 10 Virginia-class nuclear-powered subs for $US1.7 billion each, which is less than the budgeted replacement for the Collins. We should be addressing what is the best machine instead of repeating mistakes just because of a policy written years ago.

Colin B. Fraser, Aldgate SA
 
I suppose it's all a matter of modesty. :)

burka-bikini1.jpg
 
sptrawler said:
I wonder if they would let a bunch of blokes, wearing full face motor cycle helmets, walk in?
Click to expand...

I wonder what would happen if a bunch of Aussie blokes donned a burka each and paraded around in them? Take it one step further, I wonder what would happen if motor cycle members donned a burka each in Qld ?
 
noco said:
Buy the best subs

THANKS to Brendan Nicholson for the most interesting report about retired rear admiral Peter Briggs’s criticisms of the Japanese Soryu-class submarines, which are being considered as a replacement of the Collins class (“Navy veterans critical of Japanese subs”, 1/10). It is worrying that we are considering the Soryu when it has smaller crew quarters and a shorter range than the Collins.

I agree with him when he says we should be considering a nuclear design, such as the French Barracuda, which doesn’t need refuelling for many years. Surely with our vast shoreline we need vessels with extended range rather than the reverse.

In 1990 we could have bought the British nuclear Vanguard submarines for about the same cost as the Collins. But because of our antinuclear policy these were never considered.

Is history going to repeat itself, or are we going to get real, start afresh, and consider revoking our antinuclear stand so we can look at the best submarine to suit our needs? Right now the US navy is building another 10 Virginia-class nuclear-powered subs for $US1.7 billion each, which is less than the budgeted replacement for the Collins. We should be addressing what is the best machine instead of repeating mistakes just because of a policy written years ago.

Colin B. Fraser, Aldgate SA
Click to expand...

I heard the diesel is quieter, but yea, with our vast coastal borders, nuclear ought to be the way... at least worth considering given that a couple of bound of the stuff could fire one for a while.
 
Surely we could go with out strength and use coal power subs!

Seriously though, with the recent developments of batteries, couldn't we have an electric sub, maybe with fuel cells to create hydrogen from sea water to use as power as a backup. We wouldn't need refuelling depots or the problems of nuclear fuel.
 
Knobby22 said:
Surely we could go with out strength and use coal power subs!

Seriously though, with the recent developments of batteries, couldn't we have an electric sub, maybe with fuel cells to create hydrogen from sea water to use as power as a backup. We wouldn't need refuelling depots or the problems of nuclear fuel.
Click to expand...

Yeah...good idea but lets include some port holes as well to let the gases out.l
 
Knobby22 said:
Surely we could go with out strength and use coal power subs!

Seriously though, with the recent developments of batteries, couldn't we have an electric sub, maybe with fuel cells to create hydrogen from sea water to use as power as a backup. We wouldn't need refuelling depots or the problems of nuclear fuel.
Click to expand...

That's interesting... Saw a documentary where modern subs now uses seawater as its source of oxygen for breathing - separating the O2 from H2O... might as well use the Hydrogen byproduct to energise.

But why use clean Hydrogen and there's clean coals and fossil.
 
Top