Sunday 31st of May 2020

of burqua and pointed bras...

pointed bras...

I have noticed that there is no article yet on the Religion and Ethics ABC website about Pauline Hanson burko burqua stunt in parliament. I may be too impatient. And I agree with Piers in the Turdy Crapograph. Goodness me... I’m crap. I am going to be hit for six... But the burqua is problematic. And I disagree with Piers. He exclusively attacks the boffins of the Labor party for applauding the head government bigot, Senator George Brandis — who on this occasion showed some generously misplaced sentiments of burqua-love — with his tirade condemning the self-immolating Saint Pauline for her stunt — or was it because she looked stupid. 

No real bashing of the Libs doing the same as the Labor boffins. The Libs are Piers’ power base, especially those on the extreme right, not the libs like Turnbull whom he does not love much... Meanwhile La Devine condemns the Hanson stunt (as we should) as if we all should accept the burqua as a “religious symbol” of significance. It’s not. It’s not even mentioned in the Koran. I believe the burqua is an invention of forceful men to control women. Simple. All feminists should be up in arms about the garment, as much as revolt against the pointed bras of Jean Paul Gaultier that, to say the least, have some artistic merit despite the pain when wearing them beyond the catwalk. 

The burqua has nil artistic merit, in either blue or black. Nada, zilch. The burqua is degrading the status of women and degrading the religious beliefs themselves, as god, allah or the next door cat have nothing to do with this “old” men’s clothed invention. Actually, the burqua could have been invented by women to stop men behaving badly, who knows, but I prefer blaming males because the end result is belittling, and degrading especially when it goes in step with reduction of curiosity and very limited education for women. 

Here as well, to maintain the need for this female garment means also a very limited education in males, despite a possible vast religious knowledge which has nil adapting proper philosophical human value. 

So where to from here? The stunt by La Pauline was ugly. Sure. It was not made to salvage the equality of women in our disparate society, but to scare simple-minded people about a “frightening” extremist weirdo religious belief other than her own restrictive Christian values and rituals (which to say the least can be as crazy) in government. 

La Hanson is lucky that many braver women before her fought for the emancipation of women from the sexist laws of men, in the western world — and at one stage burned their bras (until some women realised it was not “comfortable to be bra-less”. In order to be comfortably “bra-less", one had to be a near flat-chested vegetarian or a young bare-chested chick at Woodstock. At this level, Saint Pauline’s intellect is far from philosophical and reasoned emancipation. She is bitter and mostly frightened by what she does not understand — including global warming. She is an opportunistic grabber for self-promotion with a sense of really afraid fake-ish trembling outrage. Her One Nation political outfit is twisted, filled with ignorance and borderline on being corrupt. On this score, Tony Abbott is even more so, but he is more sneakily savvy in his stunts. (

So to ban or not to ban? Some countries ( have banned the garment that hides the face of women. They tolerate the rest of the pitched tent that to say the least is an affront to the glorious human female curves (hence the purpose of hiding them from perving male strangers) and an affront to the merchant of fashion — fashion being another more benign enslaving construct to subconsciously manipulate women for profit. 

Fashion at least is designed to “improve the looks” of women and make them more attractive to men, beyond the pro-creative activities, in sharing, in entertainment and plain enjoyment of beauty and life. Yep, this could be seen as perverse by old religious Imam, but so is drinking coffee, smoking cold fumes and belly-dancers. And I repeat Whitlam: “only the impotent are pure...”. 

The face covering ban is made for practical and security reasons to make sure the identity of the person is clear. With the faces hidden from view, there is no way laws can be applied properly when cases arise. Judges have the duty to ask for, and see, proper facial recognition of individuals IN ALL CASES, and even then, identities can be sometimes mistaken. 

Countries like Saudi Arabia submit women to strict religious brainwashing from a young age so the different (truly inferior) status of women becomes “accepted and even sought after by women”. The women who demand different recognition get severely punished, under the laws of men in such countries, including in Afghanistan when under the Taliban rule and still now. Our hypocrisy was fully exposed when we went to “liberate Afghanistan to protect the women from the ruthless Taliban” (we're still there at war trying to "protect women", 16 years later) under the cover of searching for Bin laden, while the Saudis (men, disguised as kings and princes) who practise the same belittlement of women are our best friends. 

I already have discussed secular tolerance of religions in various comments on this site. Here again, I would rather hope that all organised religions disappeared from our improving social constructs. Democracy necessarily relies on numbers — and special cases for “minorities”, including religious minorities. These are fluid dynamics in which religions interference in the government can change the purpose of democracy, manipulate the numbers and constrict the future of secularity in humanity.

The choice is ours. I prefer one without the burqua — for all women’s sake.


Gus Leonisky

Your local atheistic humanist for the emancipation of women from religious dictums.


Images at top by Gus Leonisky. Jean Paul Gaultier fashion exhibition Melbourne.


racism or fashion?...

Across the Western world we have seen the rise of right-wing populists such as Donald Trump in the US, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Marine Le Pen in France. They have seized on Western fears of Islamic invasion and translated them into votes.

The political resurrection of Pauline Hanson and the appearance of a poll indicating that 49% of Australians wish to stop Muslim immigration suggest right-wing populism has found fertile ground in Australia.

The rise of the populist right tends to be rationalised as either the resurgent racism of white people, manifesting as Islamophobia, or as a protest vote against the negative effects of globalisation.

But behind the rise of anti-Muslim antipathy in Australia lies a more uncomfortable explanation: the surprising persistence of religious identity in Australian public life.

Hanson’s racism cannot be downplayed. Nor should the possibility that many Australians voted for One Nation as a protest against the major parties be discounted. Still, racist attitudes and economic factors alone cannot explain the nearly 600,000 votes One Nation’s Senate candidates received at the last federal election.

One Nation’s arguments against multiculturalism and immigration – like those of similar right-wing populist parties around the world – do not preclude the idea that people of different ethnicities can live together. Rather, they tout a vision of Western civilisation that is founded upon Judeo-Christian values and under siege by the alien force of Islam.

read more:

doing isis' work...

Pauline Hanson’s decision to wear a burqa in the Australian Senate to call for the Islamic face covering to be banned undermines police efforts to build social cohesion, the head of Victoria’s counter-terrorism command has said.

A Victoria police assistant commissioner, Ross Guenther, said episodes like the Hanson stunt “tend to undermine” work with Muslim community leaders, while the Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young told the One Nation leader she was “doing Isis’s work for them”.

read more:

a political statement, not a religious view...

Pauline Hanson's recent burka stunt attracted criticism from both sides of Parliament, but a Muslim scholar and human rights adviser says it's the garment itself that's offensive.

Associate Professor Elham Manea, a Swiss-Yemeni citizen and the author of Women and Sharia Law, argues it is naïve — even racist — to regard the wearing of a burka as a sincere act of faith.

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.

 AUDIO: Listen to the full interview (Religion and Ethics Report)


"The burka is not Islamic," she told the Religion and Ethics Report.

"It's a tradition that comes from the heart of Saudi Arabia, a region called Nejd."

Dr Manea says the veiled garment was not worn by women outside of Nejd until Saudi Arabia's Wahabi regime came to power in the late 1970s.

"The re-Islamisation of Saudi Arabia according to the Wahabi Salafi fundamentalist principles led to the mainstreaming of the burka," she said.

"With Gulf money you had a promotion of this ideology and a reading of Islam that turned the burka into an 'Islamic' tradition."

read more:

burqa bans...

In a matter of days, Finland will be heading to the polls to elect a new president, and recent polls suggest plummeting support for the incumbent leader, Sauli Niinistö, which will potentially lead to a runoff. Some candidates are trying to win over voters' hearts and minds with a stance perceived as unusual in the Nordic country.

Laura Huhtasaari of the right-wing Finns party has become the only contender betting on a ban on traditional religious clothing that hides the face and body, i.e. the burqa and the niqab.

During an election debate Huhtasaari defended her position by saying that burqa bans are not something unique and have been already introduced in several European countries, such as France.


Read more:


Read from top...

and the winner is...

and the winner is...

Firebrand Dutch MP Geert Wilders is to run a Mohammed ‘cartoon-drawing’ contest while he appeals a 2016 conviction for anti-Moroccan comments. The right-wing veteran is perhaps best known for his attacks on Islam.

Wilders, the founder and current leader of the biggest opposition party in the Dutch parliament, the Party for Freedom (PPV), will return to court on Thursday to appeal a conviction for making “demeaning and insulting”comments against people of Moroccan origin.

During a 2014 rally, Wilders asked supporters whether they wanted “fewer or more” Moroccans living in the Netherlands. The crowd shouted back: “Fewer! Fewer!” Wilders answered: “We’re going to organize that.”

Some 6,400 people, many of them Moroccan immigrants, complained about his comments. However, the appeal judges have ordered the prosecution to provide details about how these complaints were handled.

Read more:


Read from top.

Question: Why would Muslim women often protest more than men on this issue? (see picture of article in RT). The answer is theirs... but I think that the religious "ritual of submission" belief is very much ingrained in their own mind. Subconsciously, the ritual of submission protects them from the real freedom of being "liberated" which could be somewhat frightening and fraught with uncertainty. 

free-speech cartoons...

Dutch anti-Islam firebrand Geert Wilders has confirmed that a Prophet Mohammed cartoon contest will be held in his party’s secure offices in Dutch parliament, after receiving approval for the event from security officials.

The divisive right-wing politician and leader of the country’s largest opposition party, the Freedom Party, took to Twitter on Tuesday to announce the news.

“Dutch Counter-terrorism Agency NCTV gives green light to Muhammad cartoon contest in secured PVV quarters of Dutch Parliament later this year,” Wilders tweeted, along with a Mohammed cartoon. “So that’s what we’re going to do and organize! With cartoonist/ex-Muslim Bosch Fawstin! Freedom of speech is most important of all!!” he wrote.


Read more:


Read article above...

cartooning in favour of bad taste...

The head of the Netherlands' opposition right-wing Party for Freedom, or PVV, Geert Wilders, is known throughout Europe for his promising to ban the Koran and close down mosques.

The Netherlands' counter-terrorism police (NCTb) have arrested a man suspected of threatening an attack on anti-Islam right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders, the organizer of a Prophet Muhammad cartoon competition due to be held in November, according to the AP.

Police said in a statement that they detained the 26-year-old, who has yet to be identified, at the main railway station in The Hague after they spotted his video on Facebook in which the man talked about staging an attack on Wilders as well as the Dutch parliament.


Read more:


Another bad taste cartoon:

funny bad taste...

Built by Italians, cleaned up by emigrants...

safety first, cartoons second...

Anti-Islamist Dutch politician Geert Wilders has cancelled his Prophet Mohammed cartoon contests after a man was arrested for plotting an attack against him and thousands took to the streets in Pakistan in protest.

“Islam showed its true face once again with death threats, fatwas and violence,” Wilders said as he commented on his decision on Twitter. The Party for Freedom (PVV) leader said the controversial competition was called off because the “safety and security” of the Dutch people was his priority.


Read more:


Read from top.

the moderate extremists...


According to Public Prosecutor Ferry van Veghel, the so-called “moderate” Ahrar al-Sham is indeed a terrorist organisation. He says that the Public Prosecutor has indicted Dutch citizens for participation in the movement. According to Van Veghel, there is no difference between jihadist, extremist and terrorist organisations. “All organisations whose purpose is to establish a caliphate in Syria, which aim to frighten civilians, they can be regarded as a terrorist organisation according to the law.

And the presence of these armed groups at “democratic conferences” organised by the United States and its allies, makes no difference he says: “I think it is always good to judge organisations mainly on their actions and not so much on their words.

Ahrar al-Sham was no longer considered “radical” in December 2015, even though the officials of ministers Koenders reported on the human rights violations committed by the combat group.

The group on May 12, 2016, together with ally Al-Qaida, was responsible for a bloodbath in the village of al-Zara. A picture of the slaughter shows how two fighters, with camouflaged hats on and with machine guns in their hands, stand on the bodies of at least two women. The women were shot dead shortly before. Human Rights Watch reported this massacre. A month later Ahrar al-Sham committed a suicide attack in the province of Aleppo.

Jabhat al-Shamiya, also known as the Levant Front, is an umbrella group for Turkey-backed rebel fighters based in northern Syria. In 2016, Amnesty International accused it of carrying out summary executions and establishing sharia courts.

Relief supplies offered to combat groups can also be punishable, because it is a contribution to the conflict and possibly even terrorist financing, Van Veghel argues. “If you send pick-up trucks, you enable someone to travel, you enable an organisation to be able to get from A to B.” Van Veghel concluded in a strict tone: “If you in any way play a role in that battle, either active as a combatant, or less active but in such a way that you enable another person to take part in that battle, then you will face criminal responsibility.

At Trouw and Nieuwsuur’s request for a general list or qualification system showing which groups in Syria are considered “moderate”, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs pointed to the official terrorism lists of the EU and the UN. Many terrorists can be found on these lists, but no “moderates”. There is no system for “moderate” fighters and no lists are kept, according to a spokesman. An overview of all “moderate” groups in Syria eleven weeks after submission of the request, has not been forthcoming.


Read more:


Read from top.