| DonFerrari said: Of course there is a difference, protesting against the obligation of woman to use Burqa to hide their face doesn't contradict they using facial coverage (which I don't think they should, but they probably are ashamed of being seem doing it and/or afraid of being laid off) versus safety reason/recognize because that is what their coverage do. |
That is just playing with semantics.
They are protesting about the banning of the Burqa, whilst wearing face coverings, they are blatant hypocrites, try and spin it anyway you want, that is the reality.
| DonFerrari said: The religious freedom vs oppresion of women is certainly a divisive situation where it's both right to say islam is antiquate but also that they are free to pursue it as long as it doesn't break any other law. |
Islam is a Middle-Eastern Abrahamic religion just like Christianity and Judaism, we have freedom from religion in Australia which is embedded in the Australian constitution.
It needs to be absolutely respected at all levels.
People are entitled to wear whatever they desire in Australia, women are not being forced to wear it due to the law of the land.
| DonFerrari said: Someone wanting to use burqa is still different than being a woman that is mandated to use it not of own volition. |
They are not mandated at a legal level.
They believe they have to wear it for religious and/or cultural reasons, not because they are being forced to by the constitution or government, that is the fundamental difference here.
Many women may also convert to Islam, many may convert away... And the changes in head-dress can change accordingly.
Besides, this is the very definition if bigotry (Aka. Intolerance) as many other religions have mandated head-wear as well, yet the far-right tend not to whinge about those.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
