Home Australia Pauline Hanson's Burqa Stunt — Are We Asking The Right Questions?

Pauline Hanson's Burqa Stunt — Are We Asking The Right Questions?

69

by Dee McLachlan

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson arrived in the Senate question yesterday wearing a burqa.

It was a stunt by Hanson — a prelude before asking her question about when Australia is going to ban the burqa. She insists that banning the burqa is a national security issue and is not compatible in Australian society — that it was “un-Australian”. She told a Sydney radio station this morning, KIIS FM’s Kyle and Jackie O, that “At no stage did anyone check my security… I think it’s totally wrong.” 

Attorney-General George Brandis then answered Hanson’s question. This is what was written in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Choking back emotion, Attorney-General George Brandis has received a rare standing ovation from his political opponents for his furious repudiation of Pauline Hanson’s burqa performance, declaring her stunt an “appalling thing to do”.

To quote Brandis (see video below):

“Senator Hanson, no, we will not be banning the burqa…

“Senator Hanson, I’m not going to pretend to ignore the stunt that you have tried to pull today by arriving in the chamber dressed in burqa when we all know you are not an adherent to the Islamic faith. I caution you and counsel you Senator Hanson, with respect, to be very, very careful of the offence you may give to the religious sensibilities of other Australians.

When I was watching Channel 9 this morning, a survey claims that there was more support for Hanson (61%), than those that disapproved.

Is It About Politics — Or Woman?

George Brandis turned it into a politically correct argument. But whenever I see the burqa, the first question that comes into my mind is: “Does that woman really want to wear it?”

This is an article from the spectator.co.uk, entitled: “As a Muslim, I strongly support the right to ban the veil“.  Qanta Ahmed writes:

“At last, the European Court of Justice has made a stand for European values…

“I was raised as an observant Muslim in a British family. Women, I was taught, determine their own conduct — including their ‘veiling’. We’d cover our hair only if we freely chose to do so. That’s why I’m baffled by the notion that all good Muslim women should cover their hair or face. My entire family are puzzled by it too, as are millions like us. Not until recent years has the idea taken root that Muslim women are obliged by their faith to wear a veil.

“It’s a sign, I think, not of assertive Islam, but of what happens when Islamists are tolerated by a western culture that’s absurdly anxious to avoid offence. This strange, unwitting collaboration between liberals and extremists has been going on for years. But at last there are signs that it is ending.

“…There’s nothing from the early Islamic period about what the khimar — or veil — should cover, whether face, body or hair. The Quran, in Sura 24:31, reminds Muslim women simply of the need to ‘draw…[it] over their bosoms’. One of the Prophet Mohammed’s wives is commanded to speak from behind a ‘hijab’ (Arabic for ‘curtain’) as a mark of high distinction (Quran Sura 33:53).”

Here is a detailed list of various countries regarding the burqa. France was the first European country to ban the burka and niqab in public places.

Back to Pauline’s Stunt

It is quite possible that a burqa can be used to hide a crime.

Recall that Monis’ partner Amirah Droudis was all covered up during the afternoon that she went to an apartment building hallway and killed the ex-wife of Monis, the mother of her two children.

In the book Inquest: Siege in Sydney, Mary Maxwell speculates that the killer (who also set the victim on fire) was unlikely to be a first-time amateur killer, such as Amirah. The burqa, Maxwell suggests, had the effect of leading to the conviction of Amirah, rather than an acquittal. The prosecution was able to hypothesize that it was Amirah and even the two eye witnesses could not say what the woman looked like, or if it even was a female.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDf-5ygFXGk

SHARE

69 COMMENTS

  2. There is no such thing as asking the right question. This tactic is used by those who seek to direct a questioner into a specific direction.
    What is important is the response that any question elicits – and then we get into the nitty-gritty of the sophists’ method who, for whatever, reason, seek to block an open enquiry on contentious issues.
    For example, the Trump response to the Charlottesville clashes is a prime example of how he is trying to open the rigid ideological shroud that suppresses factual evidence.
    Predictably, the media is on to the Neo-NAZIS, RACISTS, ANTISEMITES, et al., which does not help to breathe new life into a decaying political situation where the Talmudic/Marxist/Feminist ideological impulses rule supreme – and where there is no more discussion on issues “that divide the nation”.

    Senator George Brandis responded with moral indignation to Senator Hanson’s perhaps tasteless but important physical statement, which needed to be made in a place where our lawmakers gather to contemplate and execute Australia’s future life-style.

  3. The deliberate obfuscation of the inherent danger that the Islamic Elephant in the Western room poses, particularly since the catastrophic event of 9/11, when the cunning and tasteless lie, ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra began to make the rounds, is especially telling, and specifically telling to those who have taken the time to study Islamic history and who understand only too well the implications that large numbers of Muslim immigrants pose to any country stupid enough to take them in. That only Western countries have embraced the Islamic onslaught exposes the Globalist agenda for what it is – the replacement of whole Western peoples from their own native lands via cultural collapse and/or, civil war resulting in the submission to Islam as the New World Religion that even that fascist, Pope Francis, is promoting.

    Hanson’s stunt has exposed the non-thinkers, the charlatans, the moral cowards and the traitors for what they are – self-indulgent egotists who would rather dance with the Devil than take to fighting the Devil’s agenda, and who, for their 30 pieces of silver, are quite willing to betray their own kind.

      • Tut, tut Mary. What you ask is called a leading question, you naughty girl!

        I think most of us who comment on this site know that 9/11 was a false flag inside job. However, what you should consider is why there was a sudden upsurge in Islamic terrorist attacks world wide beginning immediately after that event – over 30, 000 to date and still counting.

        Islamic terrorist attacks have been ongoing since the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) chose to use airliners to hijack back in the mid-1960s, but it was only after 9/11 that those attacks went world wide that during the 60s/70s and 80s, were mostly confined to the middle east and Europe, particularly, Germany.

        Prior to the PLO coming onto the world stage, Islamic terror attacks were infrequent and uncoordinated.

        A series relevant questions that should be asked regarding that Islamic elephant in the Western room, is who, what, why, where and how, certain Islamic groups came into lots of money, arms, munitions and war materiel immediately after the end of WW2.

        • The ‘terrorist’ attacks during the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s!
          By chance, are you referring to the NATO intelligence murders as carried out by operation Gladio for example?
          A really good one was the bombing of the Bologna railway station murdering about 80 travellers.
          Then earlier there was operation Suzannah resullting in the demise of Israeli defence minister Lavon.
          Oh what a history.
          Now we have Muslims.

          • Ned, the PLO and Black September were never part of any NATO operation.

            Do some research on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt and Arafat’s background to gain some insight. Or, maybe there is too much truth there for you to swallow?

            The PLO objective was to ‘free Palestine’ and they didn’t care how many non-Jews they killed in the process, hence their taking to hijacking aircraft and bombing European airports and the slaughter of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

            How soon you forget Ned.

            But, you roll over and go back to sleep still believing that the Joooos are responsible for all the ills of the world while giving the greatest slave traders, cut throats and civilization destroyers, a free pass.

          • Nemisis,
            Please, give readers some recognition that it is realised that you are full of complete obfuscation and are a serious embarrassment to my Jew friends and colleagues.
            As I am ‘on the turps’, I will put it in bullets.
            Israel is a zionist invention from the 1890s.
            God was presented with a real estate licence to support the zionists.
            Einstein disowned zionism.
            The magic six 6 million appear in publication prior to ww1 and after.
            The Bolshevik communists were mainly Jews and wiped out by some reports, 20 million christians in the Ukraine.
            Balfour gave away Palestine for zionist support to get the US into a royal family squabble in ww1.
            Even the Germans warned publicy for peope to not travel on the Lousitania as it carried arms …. as it did.
            Germany was commercially black listed by the zionists (Judea) in the earlly 1930’s
            The zionists bankrolled Hitler’s arms build up.
            Hitler did a deal with the zionists with the transfer agreement of 1933 sending tens of thousands of Jews to Palestine.
            Aussies died in the Middle East. Ww 1 and 11
            The Us Presedent denied entry by Jews into the US…….why? Well there was Palestine.
            The Irgun terrorists killed our English allies…. King David for example.
            Everyone felt sorry for the persecuted Jews and the terrorists went and formed a Israel government. I recall the film Exodus!!,, yep I was suckered as a student because I was ignorant.
            Israeli terrorists tried to get the US and UK suckered by more war with examples like operation Suzanah.
            The Murder of the Crew on the USS Liberty was another bit of Israel crap
            Yep the muzzies are crazy, but they are not alone.
            I need some turps…… no proof reading, dinner is a cooking.
            Ps who came first? The mad Palestinian terrorists or the mad zionist terrorists?

          • Ned, if you and Terry and others on this site believe that I am ‘full of complete obfuscation’ why bother responding to what I put up?

            Aren’t your responses more of intolerance to my what I write rather than in anything you wish to accuse me of? You demand of me what you don’t demand of others on this site who decide to either, a. Not answer the question put to them, b. Choose to respond with a counter question or C. just ignore the comment completely.

            But according to you and Terry, and I have yet to read from who the others are, I am the only commenter who ‘obfuscates’.

            Now to your points: BTW, your writing improves when you are on the ‘Turps’. Grin.

            1. The real God does not get involved in the day to day affairs of Men.

            2. Einstein was a devoted Zionist – your sources are faulty – look up the book titled, About Zionism, which contains many of Einstein’s quotes regarding his fondness for an Israeli state.

            3. The Bolsheviks were not all Jews – again your sources are faulty. Stop using Youtube or wikipedia and buy some books that can be researched.

            4.Balfour did not give away the land then termed Palestine. The declaration was to establish a Jewish homeland within the old lands of Judea and Samaria (Palestine) that had at that time been occupied by Jews for over 3400 years. The intention was not to dislocate the Arabs already there but to include them into the Jewish state. Haifa and Telaviv were already established Jewish towns in Palestine during the time the ANZACs were pushing out the Ottomans during WW1, and while the Arabs lived the way they had always done for thousands of years.

            ‘Mohammedism is the most retrograde force on Earth’ – Winston Churchill.

            5. As for the Lusitania, that incident was more than likely used to drag America into the First World War. But there is little evidence available as to who organized that event with which to point a finger at.

            6. The Irgun terrorists (Jewish) were in response to the Arabs and the atrocities they had been carrying out against Jewish settlers. Again do some research as you are just too ready to blame one side only.

            7.Anyone can make a good propaganda movie Ned. Exodus is no exception, but, and according to my own research, there is much truth in what that movie portrays. particularly around the time of The Partition.

            8. You already know my view on the USS Liberty incident – you and some others on this site need to do some serious research on what happened then if you seek the truth.

            9. I hope dinner was not spoiled. As for the madness of religious fanatics on both sides of an issue that will be with us for decades yet, it really comes down to the one side that simply will not tolerate the other – and that was noted in Einstein’s memoirs.

          • Ned, a leading question will always be apparent to those who actually know where a question may lead them. Maybe you should be asking Mary why she put that question to me?

          • Directing someone’s attention to an area of inquiry is not a leading question. Suggesting to the person what the answer to the question should be, is ‘leading’.

            For example: “what colour was the car?” is not leading, it is a question directing a witnesses attention to the colour of the car, however, they may answer anyway they choose. However, “the colour of the car was red, wasn’t it?” is suggesting the desired answer and is a leading question.

            And I also agree that your constant “deflection and question re-framing” is getting old. Rather than respond to such a ploy, I would rather leave my original comment and your obvious evasion stand as is. – It doesn’t go unnoticed on the forum.

          • Your example In a court of law maybe Terry, not on a public forum where one gets a hint at where the question is leading to.

            Am I the only visitor to this site who you believe is ‘guilty’ of that?

            If the question framed is obviously leading to a ‘gotcha’ moment then why should the answer be given to such a narrow question? Isn’t it the case that you take that stance simply because you and your reference to ‘others’ on this site disagree with what I write?

            That sounds to me like you are badgering Terry.

          • “Your example In a court of law maybe Terry, not on a public forum where one gets a hint at where the question is leading to.”

            So what was the question leading to?

            Your response to Mary was “I think most of us who comment on this site know that 9/11 was a false flag inside job.” OK, we get that, but by who? Why waffle on about the PLO? We know Larry Silverstein was working as one of the insiders (Lucky Larry says “pull it”).

            Last I checked Silverstein wasn’t a member of the PLO or a Muslem, so, easy question to you Nemesis, what religion is he?

          • Obviously the name Silverstein isn’t of English origin. But what does that prove to you Terry? That because he is Jewish his actions automatically make every Jew just as guilty?

            So what about all the other non-Jewish actors in that event? The Chaney’s, the Bush’s etc, etc. Does their involvement also make the rest of us guilty?

            What about the Saudi involvement?

            You’re like a dog at a bone when it comes to that question. Maybe I should have pointed Mary in Dick Chaney’s direction?

            But I chose instead to bring into the comment that which was omitted in Mary’s question – the role of Islam and the Globalist NWO agenda – seems I am the only one on this site to tie those two actors together while everyone else is intent on blaming the Jews!

    • Submission to Islam?
      No, they are just stirring up the muslims to carry out the NWO agenda to destroy the christans and the christian culture.
      ‘Submission’ is planned to be to another NWO designed new religion run by the bankers enforcing fascist corporate control with perenial debt………. back to the old system of slavery and surfdom.
      Nothing much changes, except the means of implementation.
      That is why the muslim groups are being armed, bombed and transported into Europe to cause civil disturbance for the NWO agenda
      Read Dr. Day’s address in 1969 as reported by Dr. Dunegan yet?

      • Correction.
        Implemenation is always by those who control the money,
        ‘So long as I control the money, i care not who runs the government.’
        Old perenial reality.

      • You’re not paying attention to the bigger picture Ned. One does not ‘convert’ to Islam, one has to ‘submit’ to the rule of Allah.

        Islam is an Arabic word meaning, to submit, submission or other variations – no other belief system requires its ‘believers’ to completely give themselves over like Islam does.

        ‘Mohammedism (Islam) is the most retrograde force on Earth’ – Winston Churchill from the River Wars, 1896.

  4. There are two points to be made here:

    The large importations of different cultures into the host nation’s culture will always create problems. Look at what happened in Australia when we Whites invaded the Aboriginal way of living. Look at what has happened to the North American way of life due to the over abundance of Jewish emigration. These people have taken over the governments and newspapers in both US and Canada.

    What Pauline Hanson did will maybe get people to now start thinking of this issue. If you are a motorcyclist you are not allowed to wear your helmet into a business premises. The face is covered, is the excuse. So what is so different with a burqa?

  5. This is from the Australian Human Rights Commission:

    Racial vilification is dealt with under sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA).
    Section 18C of the RDA makes it unlawful to ‘offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate’ someone because of their race or ethnicity.
    Exemptions under Section 18D of the RDA ensure that artistic works, scientific and academic inquiry, and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt from section 18C, provided they are done reasonably and in good faith.

    The vast majority of claims under 18C are either conciliated through the Australian Human Rights Commission, or are withdrawn or dismissed. Many cases end with a simple apology. Racial hatred complaints comprise only a fraction of cases under the RDA dealt with by the Commission.

    If conciliation fails at the Commission, a complaint can proceed to the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court. This happens in a very small number of cases. In 2015-16, the Commission finalised 86 complaints about racial hatred. Only one complaint about racial hatred proceeded to court.
    The RDA does not make racial vilification a criminal offence, and offers only a civil remedy. Where a court finds a contravention of the Act, it may make orders for an apology or a correction, and/or award monetary damages.

  7. The question not to be asked is Hanson’s theatrical get up any more theatrical than Parliament?
    When the Greens were suspect as being not legitimate hold in office, presto no less than one office bearer in the liberal party in effect being same with the out come of the end of the Liberal party and somehow Turnbull gives the verdict of the High Court?
    It is to the credit of Parliament that the concentration upon the mundane such as same sex marriage and awaiting the High Court decision to be reviewed December, we are thankful that whilst Parliament’s attention upon what most of the population finds irrelevant to their existence, that the next divisive attack upon their living standards such as to have more money in circulation for the benefit and relief of slavery of many, you must not say socialism nor oppression, other wise many may have the opportunity to reeducate themselves as to what is the meaning behind language and dog whistling.
    The question is so hard to know what question is to be? when I put this question to the internet, is colonization the root of terrorism? interesting many had worked on the same issue, one blog mentioned the destruction of the Middle East and the demonizing of the Islam empire or what is left of it became the next rationalization of the military expense of the First World syndicate of justification to tax payers in keeping you safe? from the collapse of communism and its evil scourge, we required a significant enemy which became The Middle East, those evil people who wear masks called the Burka, and wore beards and prostrated themselves before God? and what about me?I cannot prostrate myself as the body becomes unable to do acrobatics, this is because we live longer than Islamic infidels whom as a result of early death from friendly fire and being all suspects from the point of view of our superior moral virtuous ideology that God gave us weapons to annihilate any that are not conforming to our values, at this stage you may ask what moral values? or identity? of culture? I suggest if the individual does not fit into Welsh Choral singing as heard on the Sabbath TV, of sound and sight of a correct harmony of acoustic vibration, that same as entry into Australia this test and understanding must undergo the sniff test as to suitability becoming one of us, and having never listened with intent to Mosque yodeling calling of mass to Mosque.

  9. I ACTUALLY thought this blog was to comment on Pauline Hanson’s wearing of the burqa in the senate.
    Well to throw my 2 cents worth in there to start with the burqa is not a requirement of Islam anyway, modest dress is just like it is in Christianity how one dresses or considers modesty here is left open to personal determination but to my way and the majority of people the burqa is taking things way to far because it is a sign of oppression as well as for security concerns because no one but the wearer of God really knows who is under that head covering. The burqa itself has been worn before, only a few times i admit but isn’t once enuf, to carry out bombings in Israel and well as Arabic countries so to me that’s a good enuf reason itself to ban it’s wearing in public or any gathering of people, unfortunately today all people need to be identified in public e.g hoodies, helmets, burqa’s and even block-out sunglasses. So working on this the banning of the burqa has nothing to do with religion at all but has to do with security which to me is tantamount.
    So Pauline good on you for high lighting this in a way people actually stood and took notice and hopefully will take heed before we have our first incident with this form of dress.

    • Personally, I cannot imagine anyone wearing it freely. I am less concerned about “security”. My Question is: Are the majority of woman wearing the burqa against their will? If so — Then no one should support the wearing of this garment. No one should be honouring this garment. Have these women been indoctrinated to believe it is their “Place” to not been seen? I have made a film on sexual servitude. I don’t like the parallels here. I see the security issue a distraction to a human right question.

      • It is more a political statement Dee. When one understands the political ideology that Islam is, then the reason for the wearing of the burqua becomes obvious.

  10. If anyone has been noting the exchange with Nemisis below and his message of 20 Aug and the reference to Einstein’s attitude to events in Palestine, please look up and read in full his (and others) letter to the NY Times published, dated 4th December 1948.
    N never disappoints!

    • Ned, your earlier reference concerning Einstein was that he was no Zionist – you can correct that for yourself if you so choose to simply look up some of his quotes. That letter you now place so much faith in trying to discount my responses to you, concerns the Irgun and the fascists that they were, they are no denouncing Zionism but the rise of a fascist political party in Israel!

      Like I have stated before Ned, you like to run with things that you think will undercut what I put forward without bothering to understand what it is that you run with!

      • Were you not relating to all only those muzzie terrorists that you only referred to in earlier posts?
        I have exposed zionist terrorists by referring to Einsten’s letter.
        As an old copper, it is incongrues (sp) that you are not experienced enough to also find the other two or more elephants in your world.
        Worked out of Kings Cross or Darlinghurst by chance?
        Yes Albert was a zionist as he thought what it really represented a future safe haven fof Jews.
        But it would seem that he awakened (in 1948!) to what zionism really was, something akin to fascism and nazism.
        Read the the letter seargeant (?) and enjoy yor super.

        • Yes I was Ned, but what does Islamic terrorism have to do with an Einstein letter? As I mentioned in my last comment to you, you have a tendency to grasp what you believe to be the issue based on what you believe and not what you have learned about the whole issue. Whether deliberately or not, you left out the most important aspect in your quest to heap all the blame onto the Jews. Irgun was formed to combat Arab terrorism and the British reluctance to accommodate any more Jews entering Palestine.

          The book, The Secret War against the Jews, would explain all that to you.

          Since 1920, the Arabs in Palestine had taken to committing atrocities against unarmed and unprepared Jews, and there were many of those atrocities. The British at that time had their eyes on Saudi Arabia and the oil under the sands and were not interested in protecting Jewish settlers from marauding cut throat Arabs, which is one of the main reasons for why the kibbutz was formed by Jews – for their own protection.

          There are graphic examples of what the Arabs would get up to in Palestine from our own troops in the Light Horse who drove out the Turks in 1917/18. They had no time for the Arabs.

          Again, I will implore you to read a book, Beersheba – a journey through Australia’s forgotten war, by Paul Daley, if you truly wish to grasp the ‘climate’ at that time in Palestine.

          I know my history Ned!
          .

          • Einstein’s letter refers to Israeli terrorism and murders.
            The poiint I raise that you wish to ignore is that they are all f’n terrorists.
            Clear officer?

          • And I do not side with either of the psychotic madmen.
            But some desire to chose a side. ……. that appears pretty linear to me.

  11. The blog I looked at states Einstein had not endorsed Israel as a State this would become a onward zone of conflict?
    The problem I have with Nemesis is philosophic, in terms of solving crime, crime only gets solved in entertainment, as one can see police are open to problems within crime solving for varied reasons, such as Australia’s well known Azaria’s case.
    The philosophic problem with leaving no stone unturned relating to history and documentation is, when is a stone a pebble and when is a stone a rock? if a committee investigated a crime each member could not say for sure how many stones are suspect as a agreed total? to some extent reality is not certain as to what reality is? and history is all part of being subjective? here meaning as to how far Einstein is supporting Zionism.

    • Don,
      Einstein’s letter to the NY Times in 1948 is set out in full down a bit at this link.
      Note the reported terrorist attack on the village of Deir Yassin
      http://www.bollyn.com/einsteins-letter-warning-of-israeli-terrorism-2
      There are decent people of all religious persuasions in the world and it is incumbent upon them to end hate and psychotic fascist behaviours by exposing them and their true character in history as greedy criminal control freaks.
      Fascists, communists and other totalitarian ideologies have a policy of promoting hate (e.g. with false flag events) with deeds and lies.
      Add the present arranged Muslim invasion of Europe. The consequences, being violence must be apparent when opposite cultures are forcefully lumped together.
      Who promotes their evil?
      Start with their running dogs of the controlled msm, shock jokes, journalists, our ABC/SBS and lying politicians.
      Pauline: Sell the ABC and SBS. ……. they will never be fair and impartial. ….. y’re dreamin!!

      • The letter you mention as Einstein’s is similar to what I believe that is the British are in essence guilty and responsible for the root cause of terrorism, and now since WW2 America has taken over the mantle, he seemed to regard the Jews with some or maybe great respect, I do not think he was unconditionally a Zionist.
        With regard to ABC, the propaganda is far more than just the influence ABC, what comes across with ABC presenters and many employed by this organization are into four hundred thousand and above PA, they know they are onto a good thing and want to keep their job, you can be a Snowden, but being a victim of conscience or not a victim is difficult to know if in the big picture it will effect a outcome, it is also true to say that the smallest as with quantum physics can or will become significant as effect in more than what we can surmise.
        Definitely Einstein marveled at the Universe and possible although doubtful as to what God is in terms of religion, did most likely believe we are living in a mysterious Universe, and recognized the brain of man had serious shortfalls in getting beyond our cultural limitations imprisoning our mind/brain/body of interpreting objectively existence.

    • ‘crime only gets solved in entertainment…’

      That is a very distorted view of our policing history donwreford.

      Leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit of solving crime not only gets the offender, and solves the crime, but also guarantees that the innocent are not persecuted.

      I had much success in my role as a police officer in solving many criminal events, and I find your take on criminal investigation a lot to be desired, if not downright ignorant.

      • The problem you have Nem is you are on a pension from police and your mind has been trained to think in a linear method, police are extremely lacking in self critical thinking, how do you think police history began? do you think they were created by a search for justice?

        • Don, some of the people I worked with would fit you ‘profile’ of the ‘job’, but I have never been one to be constricted by any box or lineal thinking.

          Ned would fit your ‘profile’ not I.

          • Nem, I am sure you were fairly decent at your job, as you have not replied on The Bow Street Runners? were for predominantly the rich, and today the police having the same policy, although they deal with crime such as murder, which also often is linked to money, do so to have credibility with the public who pay for their wage, overall the British Establishment is a fairly ruthless organization, what the public need is a to be treated in a reasonable way rather than to be used as a money tree for the rich, that is not to say the public are not clean slate, but we have to remember they have been to some extent as a commodity and extension of a throw away society.
            Any individual that risks stepping outside the boundaries of prescribed allocation of “knowing their place”? risks the wrath of lower/middle and all classes of victimization.

          • Profile!
            Typical cheap shot from that corner.
            I think my non linear examination of the reality of 911 against the
            Public official tide disproves your allegation……. AS A START.

  12. to pretend hansons stunt is about security is ridiculous.

    it wasnt anyone dressed in a burqua in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded at Port Arthur in 1996.

    Im not a fan of the burqua – or a nuns habit either, Im sure a suicide vest could be hidden as easily under one as the other, and i doubt a suicide bomber would be concerned if their face was covered or not. or that the first thing on a suicide bombers order of business is to go to ebay and buy a burqua.

    neither make me so scared or uncomfortable to the point of wanting to ban things, to each their own but I know some get quite hysterical about islamic fundamentalists taking over the world, and how so many acts of terror can allegedly be attributed to islam, but then theres this…

    “As a practicing Muslim, I know that my religion teaches peace. I am so certain of this fact that I will award anyone $10,000 if they can find me a verse in the Quran that says it’s ok to kill innocent people or to commit acts of terror. This is an open offer that will never expire.” – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/why-muslims-should-never-have-to-apologize_b_9526296.html

    some might like see if they can earn themselves a quick dollar.

    given the western sponsorship of all things terror related recently,
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=isis&x=13&y=11
    i think theres a lot more crucial questions we should be asking other than if its a good idea to be legislating dress codes.

    • The wearing of such garb is more a political statement than anything to do with Islamic religious requirements.

      And there have been incidents where the burqua has been used as cover for terrorist attacks.

      Islam is after all a supremacist political/social/religious ideology!

      • Any others then Islam by chance?
        Perhaps one may express ssome balance by referring to some other examples of other supremist political/social/relgious ideologies.
        ‘hehaw’! I am a donkey and await my goymin fate as a natural and ordained servility in service.
        Be cafeful with that load, I may b..uck it off.

      • The burqua used to cover for crime.
        Love some examples, it would be heaps more effective than a hoody and low slung Akubra seargeant.
        The most usual give way is a tatoo on a calf.
        Won one of those for Her Magesty.
        Yep the bank/convenience store hold-up felons would be wise to have the garb to cover thigh down to ankle. Jeans should do it.

      • Ned, perhaps if you chose to study Islam and what Islam represents you would not be posting silly comments.

        Your ignorance concerning the ‘religion of peace’ like many on this site, and after over 30,000 Islamic Terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11, and as ISIS ensconces itself in the Philippines, is just one example of why we are still being led like lambs to the slaughter into the Globalist NWO agenda.

    • Its not about the Burqa or the Koran, its about oil, the British Governing Elite did not like Arabs, as a result of many things like having a difficult time setting up parliament and also they were in bed with the Jews, the Jews had money and Britain had arms and industry.
      Lawrence shafted the Arabs and also shafted the boys.
      Worst the British/Jewish alliance did not like the ideology of the interpretation of money or usury, the British Elite needed to control interest rates to control the population, today the elites having got control of money which is the impoverishment of the population within the context of third rate food to destroy the health of the masses to create servility and to destroy the public’s energy enabling a relative small repressed group called police who are recruited from the lower and mid working classes being repressed for violent confrontation and lacking in education in particular philosophy, the exception to police on the beat is the higher order such as MI5/6 who are selected from universities highly paid and from hand picked families whom having a propensity of a superiority complex.

      • Don,
        You woul love Evan Black”s book: ‘Banking on Baghdad’.
        It is a hoot.
        Something for a old retired copper to also ponder, upon reflection of his life in ignorance.

          • I found it by googling the title.
            However it is Edwin Black. Oops.
            Basically the book covers all the oil companies rape of the ME from the late 1890’s to mid 1920’s.
            If you find a copy note that the English invaded Mesopotania from Bombay and Indian troops had a fun time trying to kill Persians.
            There is a report by the Governor in Bombay to Westminster to the affect, from memory in about 1925:
            The Arabs are all fighting between themselves, but we have the oil.
            Anything different now?
            Neni would love the ironry ……. and some history!
            Especially the ‘Churchill’ diagram demonstrating how aircraft shoul spread poinsonous gas over the Arabs because those dastardly scum climbed down in tunnels and would not come out, line up and fight fair.
            Those Vietnamese ‘terrorists’ were not original in their defence of their country. (:-
            Of course that would not be a surprise for N because he knows his history, as he has expresed.
            Love a sniff of mustard gas in the morning!

      • Don, it wasn’t Lawrence that ‘shafted’ the Arabs, it was his own hierarchy who were at that time cozying up to the Bedouin within Saudi Arabia and all that oil. Lawrence was appalled at the treatment meted out to those Arabs who were just discarded by the British government after their use in routing the Ottomans came to an end.

        I have no idea where you get the British/Jewish alliance from – the British establishment were/are highly anti-Jewish.

        • Lawrence a upper middle class individual, after private schooling and fazing you may find the exhaust end more attractive than a frontal view finder? Lawrence most likely a covert connected with MI6, operator, he must had known at the conquest of the Ottoman rule what was inevitable? excuse the pun, covering his own arse, had to put the mask on as shocked by British interests setting up Israel.
          Where did Cromwell acquire money to usurp the British Monarchy? the Jews, according to what I have read, the Napoleon war and Britain, cleaned up on the stock market, big time, you must know your history Nem? how can you challenge this history? also the Jews come to mind with the Balfour Declaration, The Jews were prominent in the East End of London, Brick Lane and so on, they are in a special relationship with Scotland Yard, a sort of political group, whereas the Palestinian’s do not, also in Melbourne they are all part of a pressure group that corrects policies of government that could be said a covert organization, remember also, Yasser Arafat, most likely murdered in a French hospital, the French are all partof organized crime with British interests, and on it go’s.

    • There is another worthwhile investment of your ten grand.
      How about spending it transporting families of convicted muslim criminals out of your country?

  13. “PAULINE Hanson’s burqa stunt gave her the cheap publicity she was seeking but it also revealed the breathtaking ignorance and hypocrisy of those who rushed to condemn her.

    It’s one thing to be perturbed by Hanson’s prank but to defend the burqa, a tool of oppression inflicted on millions of disempowered women around the world, is unconscionable.”

    I have to agree with Rita Panahi that it is a servitude garment.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.