Do we allow genital mutilation in this country, under the guise of religious beliefs?

from wikipedia:

In 1994 there were several anecdotal reports of FGC being practised amongst migrant communities in Australia.[87] By 1997, all Australian states and territories had made FGC a specific criminal offence. It is also a criminal offence to take, or propose to take, a child outside Australia to have a FGC procedure performed.[88] The incidence of FGC in Australia is unknown as it is unreported to authorities and is often only uncovered when women and girls are taken to hospital due to complications with the procedure.[89]

-----------------------

Other form of genital mutilation:

-------------------

In Australia today circumcision of baby boys is rare, and the uncut penis is the normal thing among young people, but many parents are still anxious about the subject. Because Australia has a past history of widespread circumcision, they may be unfamiliar with the normal penis and worried that they will not know how to look after it. They may also have been alarmed by reports in the media about the risks to health supposedly caused by the foreskin, or they may have heard stories from relatives or friends that the normal penis is somehow difficult to look after or prone to problems.

-----------------------

Preamble: The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants or children in Australia. It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce, based on the current evidence available.

Due to religious beliefs, Jewish children are circumcised by the seventh day of life, as a mark of dedication to God. [sic] Children born into the Muslim faith will likewise be circumcised for religious reasons, although the timing for the procedure is less clearly defined. There are Christian groups in other parts of the world, who insist on ritual religious circumcision, as well as tribal or cultural customs promoting male circumcision.

We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce.

----------------------------

Gus: it is obvious that religion is used as a pretext for genital mutilation, firstly to make women submissive and passive during sex, while for men, the practice induces a sense of traditional belonging. Both practices are horrid and should be banned by law.

The Burqua is another form of mutilation, that of the mind of women, by men. Not all Muslim women wear the Burqua, though the text of the Q'ran invite women to dress "with modesty". Not so long ago, even Catholic women were "told" to wear a scarf on their heads when going to church while men had to remove their hats. All these were part of submission to an order of belief. In order to achieve this power of men over women, the women get brainwashed early till they accept and embrace the practice of the total veil. It's not a good look and it is certainly an anti-social device that can be inflicted by males on women. Take for example the case of the woman in a full burqua driving in France recently being charge for impeded driving. Of course she couldn't see properly, but how far improper sense of sight are we going to allow on the roads. Is a helmet restricting vision? Thus her husband protested, being found out that the fellow had four other wives or so. But they weren't "wives" as he had not married them under the law but was their sole male for which they were concubine or "mistresses" that had born him many children... Poligamy is illegal in many countries, including France and Australia. The fellow was turning the law on its head by claiming that if any French people can be charged for having a mistress or two, all the males would be in prison by now... But with these claims he was actually throwing out the religious concept that enforced all his "wives" to wear a burqua because he was having sex with women who were not his real "wives" under the strict code of his beliefs, thus he was an adulterer first class. He and his "mistresses" can't be stoned to death as would have happened in many Muslim countries. Thus in the end is how far do we allow manipulation and mutilation of female mind by men, including the wearing of an awful looking device called the burqua?

For many women — those who have fought for equality and liberation from male oppression — this is not on. But then they know that freedom of choice is important. But the manipulation of that freedom of choice by men by religious manipulation from the onset is the key. Some women accept that the burqua is a liberating experience from the sexual filth out there and accept that arraged marriages are part of the traditional moire. The whole lot including genital mutilation is part of that moire. The marriage of 12 year old girls to older men is part of that moire... As an atheist I cannot condone it nor can I condone the mind mutilation imposed by any religions. I will fight for real freedom, not that to be encased in a cultural robe, the colour of nightmares...

I must confess that at first the circumsicion of baby boys raises all sorts of jokes to which I was exposed when I was young.  Forgive me Gus, I even feel levity coming on.

The horrific practices of various religions defy commonsese.  The brutalizing of baby girls for the express purpose (or any other) of preventing their possible enjoyment of sexual intercourse is surely the oldest exhibition of pre-arranging life in the Muslim marriage world? So be it.

The practice of Hebrews having their male children circumcized when young, had its origin I believe, in cleanliness and that such an act protects the child to some extent from common disease. 

One is to deny whatever pleasure a woman may experience in sex so as to, I imagine, negate the need for her male partner to be a better lover? Or to prevent her looking elsewhere?  It seems to me that in most, if not all of the animal world, the Male has to be more attractive than the female to "excite" her for copulation.

IMHO, circumcizition has as its basis in the ancient problem of less bathing which not only explained the conditions which could arise but had a logical answer to them.

The mutilation of young baby girls has always offended me because there is no clinical excuse for it.

To each his own?  If men feel captive to the principle of circumcision then they have an alternative in this modern society.

Like my attitude to the imposition of Catholicism when I was young, as long as they are happy, I am happy too.

God bless Australia and help those who have a "cross to bear".  NE OUBLIE.

I am somewhat amiss here. I thought that the Roman Catholic Church demanded that women attending services must have their heads covered? True?

Using the Your Democracy format, let me argue for the ban.

In a world society which has been shaken by both the American financial greed and the consistent wars fueled by the "terrorism threat", I can understand that various western nations will find it hard to allow a person to hide their face in public when even women are sacrificising their lives to defend their country in the only way they can.

On one hand I view them as the martyrs as they intend to be but, I am an old believer in the adage of that, when "in Rome do as the Romans do".  People should recognise that, if they choose to visit a nation for whatever reason, they are obligated to conform to the rules and laws of that nation and be judged accordingly.

On the other side I find a poor excuse.  Freedom always carries with it an obligation to earn that privilege by accepting the rules of your country or the country you visit because freedom is dependant on rule of law, civilization and the cooperation of tribal peoples to achieve a common future.

We may be different but, aren't we all? Let's stop fighting nature and enjoy life.

God Bless Australia and let people accept the differences which occur on borders or we will become just one swamp.  NE OUBLIE.

Hi Gus,

I can't but agree with your comments & as an agnostic, I've always struggled to take seriously those who choose to dress-up in funny clothes, allegedly to inspire others to adhere to their particular views.

Nevertheless, I've also learnt over the years that it is useful & informative to respect other cultures & their practices, provided that the less pleasant of them are not being imposed on me or mine. Indeed, I think it is possible, nay desirable, to celebrate the differences in cultures & belief systems, again provided that their champions are not attempting to impose their views on others (this view also applies to the corporate crins like coalminers & oil companies who would replace our national estate with holes in the ground).

On a different level, I realise it is not popular to defend smoking, but I find it informative how our society has progressed to a position of stigmatising that particular minority for their behaviour (just because they are a minority) whilst ignoring alcohol, fast foods & gambling (not to forget religion), all of which cause far more irreparable harm to far more people than does tobacco.

And whilst proud of my tolerance of others, I am human, as I wince at the self-mutilation engaged in by so many of our young people these days: whether in the form of tattoos, piercing or impossible hairdos. But then, I also dislike heavy makeup on either males or females & the aroma of perfume can sometimes be just as offensive as the smell of stale beer or heavy vehicle exhaust, & I won't even bother commenting on the noise that is allegedly 'music' these days or the pornography served-up as 'journalism' by the privileged elite of shock-jocks who seem to inhabit every crevice of band space - even on our ABC.

But putting all that aside, the point being made by Barnes was that, regardless of our own particular beliefs, it is illegal in this country to vilify religions, regardless of the 'brand' or their track record, & the good senator's clumsfy attempt to 'criminalise' Islam by likening a ski mask worn by a common thief to an item of traditional Muslim dress was just that.

Imagine the outcry had this brave member of the political class likened said masked hoodlum to the catholic saint McKillop ... chances are he would have been promptly burnt at the stake.

Thanks for the gardening tips ... you are far more accomplished than me & mine, except in the weeding department.

Cheers,

John.

And just to make sure we don't lose our perspective completely .....

Daily Show: "The World Has Exploded!"

Some days are slow news days.

Other days, like Thursday, comprise a perfect storm of stories - a whirlwind of failed bombings, oil spills, failing economies and hypocritical sexcapades.

On yesterday's Daily Show, Jon Stewart attempted to sort through the tangled cluster of goings on - all while resisting the urge to drool over Roland S. Martin's ascot.

Watch it ..... 

"The World Has Exploded!"

Gus: A few years ago, four or five at the most, a professional woman was told (sternly warned — on the record) by a refugee/migrant Muslim (Pashtu) that his role here was to change this nation's beliefs to those of his faith. One could laugh at this. But his words were not said with malice, nor humour, but with ingrained enlightenment and powerful determination. In his words and others like him, women had to be "put back where they belong" — where god wanted them to be...

This was not (nor is) an isolated incident in the "western world". Even without "terrorism" of bombs or fighting with AK-47, this anti-feminist attitude is a common form of "islamo-fascism" that permeate a certain section of the Muslim community. This is not new. We know that countries like Saudi-Arabia run their affairs in despotic ways, especially in regard to women. The Catholic Church does the same too. But the repression of natural curiosity in women, in some of the Muslim faith culture, go beyond the "acceptable" (define acceptable, you may say) — our intolerance of it has to be the tool against this restrictive intolerance, should we wish to protect our chosen preferred — though quite faulty at times — system of governance.

We do not condone bad behaviour. We try to stamp out murder and robbery. We do not accept these as cultural assets. Why should we accept that a culture, settling in our own mist, can rob women of their rights to proper education (which is done in a very sneaky way, by providing publicly funded private "religious" education) or eliminate the right to choose different from the banner of cultural tradition, including forbid the right to be "seen" under the draconian religious laws... Woman, she should be hidden...

You don't want me to see you, so then let's all wear a burqua and you can't see me either...  Does not engender trust of any sort. We respond and interract with visual contact... there is no sin in that. Our personal ability to communicate on a one to one basis is beyond this ugly veil of secrecy. Ah I see!... It is forbidden for this woman to communicate with people that have not been vetted by the religious canker.

Should we accept that a muslim robber, as found guilty by a Muslim court, have his hands chopped off? NO. Should we accept that an individual, because she is a woman, has to be hiddden from view or be prevented to have any real social interaction?

Many "sins" are committed against the greater community good, under the banner of religious freedom. Many more will be. There is a fine line, the thickness of a ferry rope, that ties up a person's rights to "freedom' in a powerful idiosyncratic context in which the rules of beliefs are so drastic that one can be stoned to death for being raped, or that one could fall victim to a "honour" killing by a brother in which the murderer often gets away with it. The burqua is part of such indiosyncracies...

In some "Muslim" countries, secular governments have been overthrown by extremists who are god-bent in promoting their fascist views, in which women have a determined place, full stop... No choice about it.

In my view and the view of many "liberated" women I know, who have fought long and hard for women's rights, the burqua is the thick edge of a wedge designed to send them and their sisters back to the middle ages. Sure some Muslim women will make a deliberate choice to become subservient in the framework of these religious "laws", but some (many) will do it our of fear — fear learnt and reinforced through brainwashing. In the catholic faith if one is trespasses, the penalty is temporarily loosing one's seat number in heaven. In the framework of some of the Muslim beliefs, one's own mortal life is the balance. It is a religious system in which there is no freedom of religion, nor of any social interaction outside the straightjacket...
---------------------
In the same breath I cannot accept the behaviour of the Jewish state against the Palestinian.
---------------------
Let's lighten up, sure, and burn a few burquas in public, like bras were burned in the 1960s... And burn a few Israeli flags at the same time... That would be real freedom of... sorry, freedom from religion...

G'day gentlemen,

Perhaps because I served under the laws of the Admiralty viz; at first King's and then Queen's Regulations and Admiralty instructions I have noted it's progress of right and wrong having judicial influence on Law and Order.

As we all know, the original methods of the British Navy were brutal at the very least and denied even basic humanity to those "ganged" into service against their will.  Most didn't survive for very long.  Still, as time passed and the laws of the land took into account the basic "rights" of their citizens, they modified their laws and regulations to better protect the people rather than to subdue them with uncivilized brutality.

Nothing worthwhile is simple but I have more appreciation of justice when I begin with right or wrong and deal with any semantics further on.

The world's Nations still have various internal States; Counties and Shires et al who have their own regulations that may differ somewhat but must not be in conflict with that Nation's Constitution. However, I consider for example, that the American Constitution is and was created to guarantee the people that they would be judged to be right or wrong by their actions.

Nevertheless, I accept that the Bushit "Patriot Act" and Howard's "Sedition" laws would allow ignoring the basic rights of their respective citizens.  Right or wrong are denied to the accused and only the widest application of those acts are applied on the pretext of "home security". Virtually to be charged is to be guilty.

But I am missing my point.  The framework of all nations is underpinned by their laws which may be changed by the government if the need arises.  Sort of "horses for courses".  Therefore, given that the world has been influenced by the American paranoia about the need for self defense and the target of their massive media attacks (like the Murdochracy against our government) are generally Muslims - such countries as France have the judgment to make, according to their Constitution, as to whether Muslim women should be allowed anonymity in that nation.

In short - is it right for some women to exercise anonymity while suicide bombers have either been such faceless women - or men disguised as such?  Would this be a careless decision by a responsible government in the US-fostered "religion hatred" of today? Would it be a decision worthy of the stupidity of the Nazi-like Nick Minchin that a good Liberal government is one that couldn't care less about the suicide behavior of its citizens? (Under him the number of suicides would naturally be increased).  Extend his "freedom to do anything" and see where it leads you.  Struth.

The ski mask has become the symbol of anonymity in citizens up to no good - should the French President advocate that as a given freedom under the laws of his country?  He does so at his peril and he negates every camera placed by caring citizens to protect their property and perhaps their lives.

If the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions are to keep pace with the times, then they must reflect the variation of the rights of different Commonwealth Nations.

Equally, the duty of care of any non-Minchin government is to protect the rights of all of its citizens – not just the non-conformist minority.

God Bless Australia and make our people understand the foreigner’s media campaign against our elected government.  News Ltd is foreign and anti-Australian.  NE OUBLIE.

Yes Gus, the old burqua certainly has a lot to answer for ....

As we gaze down from the pulpit of our western catwalks & seek to condemn this symbol of oppression, we might care to reflect on the state of affairs inside our own glasshouse while we're at it?

In the land of the free & the home of the brave, it is estimated that more than 700,000 women are raped each year, whilst 50% of homeless women & children are on the streets because of domestic violence.

And no, we don't cut off the hands of thieves as our good friends the Saudis still do but then, less than 200 years ago we branded all manner of people for even less trivial misdemeanours than theft, including the millions of slaves traded across the empire.

And whilst the dowry system in India still results in the deaths of at least 7,000 women each year, the lack of availability of affordable childcare in 'advanced societies' such as our own means that the majority of working class women with young children are forced to live at home on benefits, whilst caring for their children, or work inconvenient casual shifts to fit-in with their partner's schedules.   

Back in India, almost 25% of the country's 15 million female babies born each year won't reach their 15th birthday, but then, at least they won't live to experience the sexual harassment experienced by upwards of 83% of their western female cousins. And if our Indian girls live longer, there is still a good chance that the practice of Sati might ultimately claim them.

And whilst the women in our particular nirvana are not constrained by the burqua, they earn little more than two thirds of male earnings, with the bulk of 'new' jobs that our politicians regularly crow about being jobs created increasingly for women: low wage & often part time.

And whilst the Chinese no longer cripple the feet of their female offspring, their confucian cousins in Seoul continue to believe that women are born to serve their fathers as young girls, their husbands when they marry, & their grown sons when they are aged.

And even though we no longer brand the miscreants that our society produces, we are not above torturing them at every opportunity in the name of any number of old testament creatures.

And when the all male priests of the christian faiths are not busy abusing small boys or covering-up for those who have, they not so long ago preached that women should be our "partners": that they should be quiet, submissive & know their place; obey & honor their fathers; love & submit to their husbands & raise godly sons & daughters.

No, it's not about the burqua, or religion for that matter: it's about patriarchy.

Our oppression of women is structural - it is an inherent feature of the patriarchal & capitalist systems - & is used as a tool of control of the lives, bodies & sexuality of women by individual men, groups of men, patriarchal institutions & States. Although it affects all women as a social group, each violent act has a specific context & we have to understand how, when & why women are oppressed.

Although violence against women & girls is more common in the private sphere - as domestic violence: be it sexual, physical, psychological or sexual abuse - it also occurs in the public sphere, including (but not limited to): feminicide, sexual & psychological harassment in the workplace, different forms of rape, the commodification of women's bodies, trafficking of women & children, prostitution, pornography, slavery, forced sterilisation, lesbophobia, denial of safe abortion & reproductive options & self-determination, etc. Silence, discrimination, impunity, women's dependence on men & theoretical & psychological arguments tolerate & aggravate the oppression of women.

As I said, the oppression of women is rooted in the patriarchal system & in capitalism, which impose the need to control, to own & to exploit women's bodies, lives & sexuality.

Patriarchy is based on two principles: women belong to men (& for this reason, women are in the service of men & can never say "no" to them) & the division of women into categories: "saints" & "sinners". As part of this system, violence is the punishment for women who do not fit the role of "saints" - of good mothers & wives.

For example, it is common for men to justify verbally or physically attacking their wives because the food was not ready or the clothes they wanted to wear were not clean. And, of course, it is also punishment for those who are considered "sinners", with both aggressors & societies justifying sexual violence against women on the basis that 'they were out alone at night', or 'they are lesbians & need to be taught to be heterosexual', or 'the clothing they were wearing was indecent' .... perhaps even a burqua?

And none of this alters the fact that the good senator has attempted to vilify Islam by comapring the ski mask of a thief with the burqua & that's a crime also.

Hi Ernest,

"The ski mask has become the symbol of anonymity in citizens up to no good" ....

Yes indeed, but let's not forget the police, 'special forces' & members of the armed forces too!!

Cheers,

John.

G'day John,

If you gentlemen didn't come up with a reasonable and equally logical debate I would be disappointed.

However, the power to prevent the contemporary "camouflage" against identification of civilians has a resolution in the Government's power to outlaw that practice.

Our Government's tell us that plain clothed Police in unmarked cars are able to arrest more offenders. This is because the deception tends to encourage potential drunks and petrol heads rather than making their obvious presence (the Police) of a warning, like that on any other dangerous behavior.

IMHO, the SAS are not able to be identified - why? At the beginning of the illegal Iraqi war, Howard crowed that our SAS were the first to kill Iraqis, even before the invasion.  Enough said.

Our Military forces are as subject to the policies of their Government as any other public servant - except that they do not have a Union to protect their better natures - and that is as it has to be – otherwise - for example in America, the number of "available" part trained "gun fodder" would dry up.

Ergo, like all Imperial empires, America needs to use the corrupt citizens of oppressed nations to justify their exploitation of their religion; politics and to control the natural resources of the country of their interest.

So where are we at John?  Secrecy has become the darling of all dishonest and deceptive governments of the world.  Invasion of privacy is in the “National Interest”. Israel is among the "great offenders" and the Middle East legal nations are perhaps the most offended.

However I do not retreat from the opinion that, in this case, the French Government must have the authority to ban attire that could be easily used by “terrorists” (in their view) against the people they represent.

We surely acknowledge John, that the “have and have nots” in this illogical world of ours needs a powerful and independent European Union and a strong Asian economy to compete with the Jewish American Wall Street.

I cannot ignore the possibility that the exploitation of the Greek economy and the money based attempt to destroy the European Union is on the cards for the same ultra powerful Organizations that had a hand in WW I and WW 2 and the manipulated  Wall Street melt down from which only the Goldman Sachs style players have emerged as profiteers?

God Bless Australia and protect our successful economic policies.  NE OUBLIE.

I have no problem with the French government banning the burqua for 'security' reasons, provided that is the reason. The trouble is, the French government & its apologists have never attempted to justify their intentions on such grounds.

Recently, our local Council decided to implement an Outdoors Smoking Policy. In its public promotion of its policy it claimed that its primary motive was to protect the public from the effects of passive smoking & partly as an effort to promote positive social policy.

In my representations to Council, I took no issue with their attempt to promote positive social policy, as I have never had a desire to impose the negative consequences of my behaviour on others. However, I did take issue with Council's dishonest attempt to portray its proposed policy as a positive public health initiative.

I pointed out to Council that the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council states that up to 100 deaths annually in Australia "could be due to passive smoking". In arriving at its conclusion, it is important to note that the Research Council's estimate was based on fatalities that arose where the victim cohabited with a smoker - in other words, the exposure to passive smoking was extensive & ongoing.

A significant part of the Council's policy will impact on social situations where the exposure to passive smoking is negligible or so infrequent as to be statistically irrelevant. In particular this is true of sporting events & other large open outdoor venues such as beaches.

Moreover, whilst advocating a wide-ranging regime of smoking bans for a relatively small health benefit, Council has nothing to say about promulgating similar policies that would arguably have greater health benefits to the community. For example, Australians are 31 times more likely to die from alcohol abuse or 60 times more likely to die from diseases or illnesses arising from obesity, than they are to die from passive smoking, but there would appear to be no interest on the part of Council in banning the consumption of alcohol or junk food at the same venues.

In other words Ernest, the Council's arguments in support of its policy are at best misleading & at worst, entirely specious.

Those who see the burqua as a tool for the oppression of women might be interested in the article in today's SMH (Going Berko About The Burqa) & I quote:

"The funny thing about humans is that officious regulation makes us rebel. I know of Muslims who never shrouded their head, yet chose to do so after 9/11 because of the vilification they encountered, particularly in the US. These are modern highly educated women who countered racism with the silent rebellion of the veil. But it shows that the veil can be merely a cultural badge of their group. It is their tribe's livery, a little bit like a Collingwood scarf. Since when are these badges worthy of denunciation?"

As I said in my last riposte, it is not about the burqua or religion, but patriarchy, & to compare the burqua to a ski mask worn by a petty crook & attempt, by doing so, to "criminalize" Islam is itself a crime.

A principle is a principle Ernest and whether I'm scratching my bum or tearing it to pieces, it's my bum.

Hear... here...

I did not mean to inflame the issue nor ban the burqua... Just pointing out that although the law about the non-vilification of religion exists, the right to have an opinion about religions, their dogma, their rituals and defining dress codes, shared or not shared, should be able to be expressed, including making cartoons of Mohammad in the same vein as we do cartoon about the pope — without fear nor prison. I personally cannot pussyfoot about religious matters, but it is not for me to ban religion. But I would betray myself if I did not express my strong views about religion. I know some atheists who are perfectly comfortable with religions. Some even think they keep the masses amused and entertained, away from reality like a Karl Marx defined opium.

Some Atheists also admire the dedicated rigour in religious teachings in which the moral religious stick is far more effective with many people than the ethical iffy atheistic device of finding personal ways to minimise the hurt we can do to ourselves or others, to just be happily living our life the way we wish.

And sometimes we will offend someone — including a George W Bush. May be we should be more caring about his feelings and beliefs...

Peace.

Absolutely agree Gus.

G'day John,

Even if security is only a part of the reason for banning (the face mask) of the Burqa IMHO it is a good thing not only for the majority of citizens of France but for the Muslim women protestors.  Regarding the women who object by wearing the face mask of the Burqa - in both the Bush and Howard legislations they could be arrested on suspicion and jailed.  Like the English peaceful objectors who protested against the Zionist massacres in Palestine - they were jailed. 

Logic tells me that the "life should be totally free advocates" would certainly speed up Hitler's plans for a "pure race" by the simple method of survival of the fittest and that would of course include superiority of weapons.

Again, if the progress of medical science continues on the track of prolonging life by methods accepted by responsible governments, the unnecessary chemicals used for commercial farming would be banned, and eventually those which endanger our health like drinking to excess - which, when I was a boy, the unarmed police would arrest any person found in public under the influence.  In addition we would not be looking at being captives of G.M. - and even worse.

I cannot escape the thought that "democratic" regulations are necessary in modern society if only to shake the complacency of careless citizens.  The ex-police friends of mine indicate that part of their duty is to pick up the heart rendering pieces of "accidents waiting to happen" lots due to alcohol, but they also have the satisfaction in knowing that their regulations are saving lives.  If people have a cavalier attitude to their own safety, then they are a potential danger to everybody.

I was horrified at that nut Minchin suggesting that everything should be up to the individual.  Would his family say that if he was mugged and killed?  Would he say that if his children were violated?  How would he feel about the white people in New Guinea who, with every possible home safety method in practice were still suffering home invasions and worse - at least when I was in the Navy anyway.

There are lies; damn lies and statistics.  While it is apparently true that the chances of being killed in a plane crash are much smaller than from motor cars one can only imagine how those figures could be doctored.

Of course you may scratch your bum John, but, don't do it vigorously in front of a woman! Assault?

God bless Australia and "give us liberty to smoke ourselves to death” or give us - death"? (Minchin 2010) Struth.

NE OUBLIE.

G'day Gentlemen,

IMHO it is evident that we are all considering what we think is best for the progress of happy lives with appropriate freedom.

Ha, but there is the rub! We have Howard's Core promises; appropriateness; reasonable; duty of care and many other semantic type caveats that take a simple issue and make it complicated.  We live in an age where the ultimate legal bodies are appointed by the incumbent governments - or the Junta.

We are now witnessing in Australia the most un-bridled misinformation for the express purpose of crucifying the Australian Government by the foreign owned media for the foreign owned miners, since the DISSMISSAL was orchestrated by the infamous Packer media empire.   In that instance, while the unprecedented politics of the Liberal/Media succeeded, it required the abuse of power; dignity and ignorance of duty of care by the Governor General.

Since his election as leader of the Federal Labor Party, Kevin Rudd has borne almost every possible abuse one could image.  Like Whitlam, even Kevin's Wife has been unfairly attacked and their relationship touted as a nobody marrying a millionaire woman.  His childhood, his Mother, his school and his training as a statesman in the Queensland government were all unfair and tactics worthy only of a third world country.

Not to be deterred, the gutter-snipe Murdochracy is laying it on thick and if our P.M. wants to defend himself legally, then he would be required to alter his course – not so and we should respect him and his very talented front bench for taking the punches and continuing to govern as WE asked him to.

The performance of the foreign Mining Industrial giants is nothing short of "Internationalizing" the most productive of our natural resources.  Lindsay Tanner was brilliant in Parliament Question Time today when he said that "what they take today is not resalable - it’s gone".  However, I don't think that session will be publicly reported - the Liberals were in form but only as rabble without any alternative intentions.

The Liberal election campaign is being designed; funded and applied by the crass "journalists" of the one and a half media giants in Australia.

The cruel truth is that the Australian people have been hoodwinked again by billionaires whose interests are solely their own and along with lining the pockets of overseas investors and any dishonest politicians in this country who can be bought.

The frustration that I feel is only accentuated by the fact that Kevin Rudd's shelving of the ETS from a truthful and logical point of view was the only thing he could do without forcing a double dissolution.  He would have been damned if he did and he is damned because he didn't.

When I consider the tone and intent of the MSM I wonder if even Howard's legislation of sedition could be used against them?  What a wonderful irony?

Just remember that during this denigration of the Federal Labor Government, the Liberals have not once put out any alternative policies - so we have a media which concentrates on only one party?  Now that is democracy Murdoch style.

God Bless Australia and John's bum.  NE OUBLIE.

A Swedish artist who created an international furore by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was assaulted as he delivered a university lecture.

Lars Vilks says he was head-butted by an audience member as he spoke about the limits of artistic freedom.

The cartoonist's glasses were broken, but he was not injured.

Mr Vilks has been threatened on numerous occasions, but the assault at Uppsala University was the first time he has been physically attacked.

The artist said a group of about 15 people had been shouting and trying to interrupt the lecture, which was attended by about 250 people.

---------------------

AND

--------------------

The French parliament has voted to condemn the full Islamic face veil, calling it "an affront to the nation's values of dignity and equality".

The non-binding resolution was passed unanimously, although 30 communist deputies walked out in protest.

Legislation to ban the full-face veil in public is expected later this year.

The proposal has provoked intense debate about religious freedom in a secular society, and the position of Muslims in France.

The resolution puts France on course to become the second European country after Belgium to declare the wearing of such veils illegal in public places.

--------------------

AND

--------------------

It is meant to be a beautiful, melodic and spiritual start to the day.

But the morning calls to prayer by some of Istanbul's muezzins and imams have had locals plugging their ears rather than reaching for their prayer books.

The problem is such that following a flood of complaints by locals, special classes for the tuneless culprits have been set up.

Imam Mehmet Tas, one of the school's first pupils, said he was already feeling the benefits.

"I have so much more self-confidence now in my abilities to do all five calls to prayer in their correct tempos," he said.

---------------

AND

--------------

Pope Benedict XVI says the clerical child abuse scandal shows that the greatest threat to Catholicism comes from "sin within" the Church.

He made his comments in response to a question while en route to Portugal.

Critics have previously accused the Vatican of attempting to blame the media and the Church's opponents for the escalation of the scandal.

But the Pope made clear its origin came from within the Church itself, and said forgiveness "does not replace justice".

from the Independent

When Awais Akram answered his mobile to Sadia Khatoon, a 24-year-old married woman whom he had met on Facebook and had recently started a physical, but not sexual, relationship with, he had little idea of the fate that was about to befall him.

Mrs Khatoon insisted they meet outside his flat in Leytonstone, east London, but as Mr Akram stepped out into the summer sunshine his lover was nowhere to be seen. Instead he was confronted by three masked men wearing gloves, one of whom was carrying a bottle of "Give It One Shot" drain cleaner.

The men, who included Mrs Khatoon's brother Mohammed Vakas, had come to wipe off what they believed was a stain on their family's "izzat" (honour). Beating and stabbing Mr Akram was not enough. As he lay bleeding on the floor, Vakas stepped over his victim and poured the entire bottle of drain cleaner over Mr Akram's face and body.

In parts of the developing world – particularly south-east Asia, the south Asian subcontinent and east Africa – acid attacks are common. The Taliban and fellow extremists have frequently resorted to throwing acid in women's faces for even small transgressions, such as daring to go out unveiled. But there are concerns that such attacks may also be on the increase in the UK.

Hospital admission figures for the past three years show a steady rise in the number of people being treated for acid attacks. According to the NHS information centre, 44 people were admitted to hospital in 2006-07 after they were "assaulted with a corrosive substance". The following year the figure jumped to 67 and last year there were 69 admissions.

The French cabinet has approved a bill making it illegal to wear in public clothes designed to hide the face.

The legislation amounts to a ban on the full-face Muslim veil.

Women wearing the veil in public could be fined, and men judged to have forced them to do so could be imprisoned.

Parliament needs to approve the bill and France's top legal advisory body has warned it may be unenforcable.

Parliament passed a non-binding resolution last week condemning the full Islamic face veil as "an affront to the nation's values of dignity and equality".

A law against conspicuous religious symbols effectively banned headscarves from state primary and secondary schools in 2004.

---------------------

 meanwhile:

THE Reverend Fred Nile will introduce a Bill to parliament calling for a ban on the Islamic burqa head and body veil. ...

 Muslim spokesman Keysar Trad attacked the proposed law, and said it was an attack on women's freedom. (source)

Trad lecturing us about women's freedom - priceless.

-------------------

From the Guardian
In feudal Japan, a beard was considered a symbol of power or a declaration of belligerent intent but bureaucrats in one town could find themselves sent to the bathroom, razor in hand, for sporting even the suggestion of a five o'clock shadow.

Authorities in Isesaki, Gunma prefecture, have ordered all male employees to shave off their facial hair, and banish all thoughts of growing any, following complaints from members of the public who said they found dealing with bearded bureaucrats "unpleasant".

The ban, the first of its kind among Japanese public officials, applies to any manifestation of facial hair, from lovingly cultivated full beards to trendy goatees and designer stubble.

The only acceptable public face of Isesaki, the local government said, is a clean-shaven one. "Some citizens find bearded men unpleasant, so beards are banned," an in-house notice warned this week.

The notice acknowledges the growing popularity of facial hair among Japanese men, encouraged by sportsmen and celebrities, but insists that "public servants should look like public servants".

----------------------

Gus: may be the Japanese public servants should wear a burqua over their head to mask their beard...

The body representing Australia's obstetricians and gynaecologists is considering whether to support a less extreme version of female circumcision known as a ritual nick.

Female circumcision has been illegal in Australia since the 1990s but doctors are worried that it is being done anyway, in unsafe conditions, by immigrants who take their daughters back to their home country.

The secretary of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Dr Gino Peccararo, says by offering the alternative, some women may be spared the agony of being mutilated overseas.

In medical circles the procedure is called ritual genital cutting or female circumcision. To its opponents, it is female genital mutilation.

Dr Peccararo says at its worst the procedure can be very nasty.

"It can progress to an extreme form that actually removes the clitoris and the labia and sews the opening of the vagina closed," Dr Peccararo said.

Sometimes these procedures are performed by people without proper medical training in unsanitary conditions.

Dr Peccararo says it may well be better for the girls involved if the parents had a far less severe but culturally acceptable alternative.

----------------------------------

Gus says: NO BLOODY WAY. See above comment "mutilation of the mind". Allow a little nip, then comes an accidental slip of the knife.... NO BLOODY WAY... Often these "cultural" atrocities are performed on individuals who cannot give consent since they usually are too young... and the nips are designed to deprive women from a complete sexuality. NO BLOODY WAY!. Better help stamp it out in other countries...

A series of posters featuring models in bikinis have been defaced or torn down in east London in what appears to be a targeted campaign. Police have not yet linked it to any religious group, but the use of black paint is reminiscent of attacks on billboards in Peshawar, Pakistan, reported by The First Post.

The east London targets include street-level bikini ads for the popular chain store H&M and the Australian swimwear brand Sea Folly, as well cinema posters for the recently released Bollywood film Kites .

The H&M bus shelter ads are behind perspex cases, which have been daubed with black paint, covering the models' faces and bodies. At street level, they present an easy target compared to the huge billboards defaced in Pakistan, where women's faces have been carefully painted out by campaigners who believe the depiction of uncovered women is un-Islamic.

The Sea Folly ads were simply pasted up, and many have been torn down, leaving shreds of paper hanging where once the famously gap-toothed Australian model Jessica Hart stared out at passers-by in all her bronzed glory.

Barcelona is set to become the first big city in Spain to ban Islamic face veils in public buildings such as markets and libraries.

The French broadcasting regulator is banning television produced by Gaza's Hamas regime on the grounds it incites hatred.

With the sound turned down, one children's show on Al-Aqsa Television looks like a new take on Bugs Bunny, but Assoud the rabbit is far less benign than his carrot-chomping colleague.

Last year the show's Islamist producers in Gaza killed him off on the set as the victim of an Israeli bombing.

The rabbit's dying words were a message to Palestinian children to glorify his death as a martyr.

"Tell the children Assoud has died, as a hero, a martyr," he said.

Stories like this - with their messages of martyrdom and death - are commonplace on Al-Aqsa Television, which is owned by Hamas.

They are made attractive to children with the use of characters like Assoud or Farfour, a Mickey Mouse lookalike, who also died when Israeli soldiers apparently beat him to death.

In another show last year, several children watch a video re-enactment of the real life death of their mother in a suicide bombing.

As the mother prepares the bomb, her daughter sings, "Mummy, what are you carrying in your arms instead of me, a toy or a present for me?"

Most of the channel's viewers are outside Gaza. Al-Aqsa Television has an estimated 20 million viewers in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa via satellites in Europe and the Gulf.

------------------------

Read "mutilation of the mind" above...

The father and brother of a 16-year-old girl pleaded guilty in a Toronto courthouse to her 2007 murder for disobeying him, including refusing to wear a hijab, a court official said Wednesday.

Toronto taxi-driver Muhammad Parvez, 60, and tow-truck driver Waqas Parvez, 29, pleaded guilty to the murder of Aqsa Parvez in late 2007, and are to be sentenced to life in prison.

They must serve at least 18 years in prison before being eligible for parole, an Ontario Superior Court official told AFP.

According to a statement of agreed facts, Aqsa was estranged from her family when her brother picked her up from a school bus stop in a Toronto suburb and took her home on December 10, 2007. There, her father strangled her to death.

"I killed my daughter," he told a 911 operator, said court documents. Paramedics found her lying dead in her bed, blood running from her nose.

Muhammad's wife, Anwar Jan, told police he had killed their youngest of eight children over her delinquent behaviour.

------------------------

from the Guardian

Stoning takes place in the darker recesses of life in Iran, in rural provinces where the population is more conservative and where there are no media. It is rarely practised in public and often the victim of this savage form of capital punishment is disowned by their children on the grounds that the offence – adultery or homosexuality – stains the family honour. This newspaper revealed a week ago that Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43-year-old Iranian woman convicted of conducting an "illicit relationship outside marriage", faced imminent death by stoning in Tabriz. Today we name 15 others facing the same fate. What made Sakineh's case unusual is that her son Sajad and daughter Farideh were courageous enough to speak up publicly against it.

It is not just the fact that Sakineh has already been in prison for five years and endured a sentence of 99 lashes for an offence there is no evidence that she committed, and that the death sentence was a sham. It was handed down on the basis of "judge's knowledge", a loophole that allows rulings where there are no witnesses or conclusive evidence. Furthermore, the judgment was not unanimous. Two of the five judges dissented, which means that under Iranian law that she should not have been sentenced to death.

-----------------

Twelve Iranian women and three men are on death row awaiting execution by stoning despite an apparent last-minute reprieve for a mother of two who had been facing the horrific sentence after being convicted of adultery.

Human rights groups and activists welcomed a wave of international publicity and protests over the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, 43, who was awaiting execution in the western Iranian town of Tabriz after what her lawyer called an unjust trial and a sham conviction.

The Iranian embassy in London said in a statement that "according to information from the relevant judicial authorities" the stoning would not go ahead. If confirmed it would be an victory for a brief but intense campaign that was first highlighted by the Guardian last week.

However, there are still concerns over her plight. In a previous case a prisoner who was to be stoned was instead executed by hanging.

-------------------------

Gus: until the United States of America abandon the death penalty in all states, until China abandons the death penalty, the death of a few Iranians by stoning — how abhorrent it is — is an act similar to the electric chair,  the fatal injections or the firing squad... No matter how "just" or "injust" the process of laws is, no matter how sophisticated or primitive the laws are, the decision to take away life of another human is murder. In the case of the "death" penalty, it is state murder.

Time to end the death penalty worldwide.

The US should show leadership in this respect, but too many of its people are bumkins from the dark ages who have adapted the god illusion to give themselves the right to become murderers under the guise of justice.

Not on...

...

You and I have recently discussed matters concerning the civilization across the Planet [or the absence thereof] and both I believe, understood the objectionable differences that we note in other laws (usually religious) as they even object to the differences in ours.  Horses for courses?

However, who is to say that one way of murdering a human being, no matter how heinous their crime, is only another way of ruling by fear.

The death penalty by any means is really using a new crime against humanity to “neutralize” another crime already committed? "So shall ye sow so shall ye reap"? Fair dinkum.

Certain eastern independent nations are using methods which date back to the times even beyond the birth of Christianity and, our western methods of punishment have tried to apply a “painless” death style which is considered to be more “humane” - to mitigate our guilt? But we do not allow euthenasia? Which means only the State has the right to decide who can die and when?

Again I blame the religions, and the blind faith in them.  The Bible says thou shall not kill - but also, an eye for an eye?  Does the latter really mean you only take another person’s eye if they have taken someone else’s?

I don’t mean to be facetious but, since I am an agnostic, I consider that with all of the education available, why do we still cling to the principles or doctrines of historic documents which are clearly in contravention of truth?

When members of the Roman Catholic faith are facing death they are made to feel more comfortable by receiving the “Last Rights”?  That is compassionate provided that it is never refused to any person of that religion no matter how they have lived or whether they have attended church regularly and donated 10% of their gross income to that Church.  I experienced that when I lived in Helensburg NSW and couldn't come to terms with it.

However, if we look seriously at that faith, the person giving “absolution” is, and can only be, doing so for the Church itself.  I doubt if that particular Priest has a given right to absolve a person in the name of God? Nor has he the right to refuse to reveal the admissions of confession – to do so is a crime in itself?

Anyway Gus, that subject is one that can expose a lifetime of contradictions and some will still believe in it.  In the big scheme of things, a human life is less than that of an ant but, it is all we have.

Cheers mate.  Ern G.  

G'day John, 

We live in a world of contradictions and organized fears which only need a modicum of believability to be sold to those who can read and watch and listen.

In Australia we have experienced, especially while the Howard “New Orders” regime was trampling on human rights, that there appeared to be an opportunity to achieve publicity by simply being “simple and controversial” – like that “drop kick” Senator for the “Family first” pimple, the notary public’s unproductive Mr. Fielding.  Fair dinkum.

The point in question is Corey Bernadi and his opportunist grab for the dispute on the “burqua” ban or not.  Our nation is plagued by Senators who should not have any federal right to interfere in federal politics since they are elected by their state and should only be allowed to vote for their state.

But that is another debate.

With an attempt to be consistent, I consider that to ban the face mask of the “Burqua” makes commonsense when you consider the success of the Bushit war against “terrorists”.

If I was responsible for the safety of Australian citizens, including Muslims, I would ask them to conform to the normal “democratic” principle of being readily identifiable.

I don’t see any genuine discrimination between a person in a face mask of the Burqua being denied access to a nation’s air service, than it would be in a non-Muslim shopping centre.

In short, I also see no major difference in the Muslim countries insisting on the wearing of the Burqua and the decision of the non-Muslim countries to ban it.  When in Rome……

What happened to the Roman Catholic demand that any female entering their churches must “have their head covered”?

The mind boggles.

Cheers John.  Ern G.

from wikipedia...

"Civilization" is often used as a synonym for the broader term "culture" in both popular and academic circles.[2] Every human being participates in a culture, defined as "the arts, customs, habits... beliefs, values, behaviour and material habits that constitute a people's way of life".[3] However, in its most widely used definition, civilization is a descriptive term for a relatively complex agricultural and urban culture. Civilizations can be distinguished from other cultures by their high level of social complexity and organization, and by their diverse economic and cultural activities.

In an older but still frequently used sense, the term "civilization" can be used in a normative manner as well: in societal contexts where complex and urban cultures are assumed to be superior to other "savage" or "barbarian" cultures, the concept of "civilization" is used as a synonym for "cultural (and often ethical) superiority of certain groups." In a similar sense, civilization can mean "refinement of thought, manners, or taste".[4] This normative notion of civilization is heavily rooted in the thought that urbanized environments provide a higher living standard, encompassed by both nutritional benefits and mental potentialities. Civilization requires advanced knowledge of: science, trade, art, government, and farming, within a society.

In his book The Philosophy of Civilization, Albert Schweitzer, one of the main philosophers on the concept of civilization, outlined the idea that there are dual opinions within society; one regarding civilization as purely material and another regarding civilization as both ethical and material. He stated that the current world crisis was, then in 1923, due to a humanity having lost the ethical conception of civilization. In this same work, he defined civilization, saying:

Hi Ernest,

My strong response in opposing the call for a ban for the burqua was not based on any desire to see that particular symbol of misogyny or patriarchy retained but rather to highlight the deliberate & dishonest way that the scumbags Benardi & Abbott attempted to dog-whistle the issue into public hysteria over the existential threat to orstrayla's existence posed by a few desperate souls in a few leaky boats whilst, at the same time, committing an act of racial vilification by suggesting that any wearer of that particular article of clothing is no different to a masked criminal.

As I pointed out in one of my earlier comments, the face mask may be seen by some as the fearsome anonymous face of terrorism (which is what the likes of Abbott & co want) or the fearsome anonymous face of government tyranny through its attempts to deny the populace the freedom to express themselves .... I suppose it depends on where you're standing & who's hitting who?

I'll stand by my comments in oppression .....

Meantime, if there is a public call to ban all forms of 'mask', including those worn by enforcers of government tyranny, I'll happily support it.

Have a good one.

Cheers,

JR

Hi John, Touche'. 

Of course you are correct regarding ANY use of masks.

I had been looking at the Muslim women's mask as a religious obligation rather than an expression of freedom.  One could argue that they can’t be both if the person is living in a country which allows such freedom in the first place.  It would then be a choice?

In other words, the denial of that freedom is not the demand of the lady’s new country but that of her religion.  Right or wrong it is not enforceable in Australia because it offends our laws of discrimination.

However, the double edged sword could mean to the lady in question, that her choice could raise angst in her Mosque which may well use the tried and true Roman Catholic method of excommunication.  

If she was to exercise her new country’s freedom NOT to wear the mask, then it is possible that she would be ostracized by her own family and friends or severely punished should she ever return to her native land.

A catch 22 John?  What a conundrum?

Can we really consider endangering our various state and federal Police by banning the masks they wear for the very reason of being un-identifiable to avoid retribution?  Now that even goes to Howard’s law that SAS troops can not be identified while performing those duties? Struth.

Is it possible John, for a country welcoming people of different faiths to insist that the laws of the new country must be adhered to?  In which case, even the Muslim clerics would have to abide by that freedom of choice?

NO!!! Actually the clerics would have the same freedom of CHOICE.  Fair dinkum.  Could we discuss this at some later time John?

Cheers mate.  Ern G.

G'day again John,

You probably know my personal opinion of the disproportionate power of the Senate to the true desires of the entire Australian voting public.  Counter productive and self-destructing for it is continually used to deny the popular Australian Government the right to govern.

This imbalance was graphically brought to the fore when Rattus declared that he would not abuse his majority in the Senate.  And all of the pigs took off.

Since then it has been open slather on the PERSONAL desires of the so-called Independents and the obstinate Greens.  The latter destroys themselves because it is now not a matter of whether their intentions are right or wrong but to achieve those “non-negotiable” objectives, with all of their compassion, would almost certainly cause another depression in Australia.

And now we come to the smart arse opportunist Senator Bernadi’s tilt at the vulnerable Senate of “whoever is who”.  He advocates the same hatred and fear that the Liberals have depended on since “Ming the Merciless” – “Pig iron Bob”and “Reds under the beds” Menzies.  The evil that men do lives after them.

IMHO, the Senate was the sole policy making body of both the Greek and Roman empires – was it not? No competing elected authority?  The Brits agreed reluctantly to have a Parliament “of the people” provided that the born to rule “House of Lords” (Roman Senate) had the final say.  Fair dinkum.

We now have a position in Australia where the voting system for the House of Representatives is merely providing the Liberal Senate with the power to oppose the democratic Bills passed by that House (as Abbott has continuously done) which certainly creates confusion in the minds of voters.

Senator Bernardi; Senator Joyce and of course Senator Fielding are examples of how the voting system FOR the Senate has become captive to the disenchantment of the voters when faced with the extreme number of nominees to each Senate election.   This, so that the votes for the major parties are so much simpler than to choose otherwise.

In any case John, the system stinks and I believe that the make up of the Senate is rarely the way the majority of Australians would want it.  Senator Bernadi is just another mistake of the system.

Cheers Ern G.

the old muslim terrorist disguised as a swedish soldier with a face mask trick .....

bernadi to seek senate re-election shock .....

good one John.

On the eve of tomorrow's Bastille Day celebrations, there is more revolution in the air in France and this time the ringleader is a flamboyant Muslim businessman called Rachid Nekkaz. The 38-year-old property developer is incensed that France has moved one step closer to banning the burka, with women caught wearing the full veil in public liable to a €150 fine and anyone convicted of forcing a woman to cover up facing a fine of up to €30,000 and a year in prison.

The first stage in passing the controversial law was today approved in the National Assembly with members of the Lower House voting overwhelmingly - 335 votes for to one against - to introduce the ban. If the French senators in the Upper House ratify the proposal in September, it will become law by the spring of 2011.

Nekkaz, along with the majority of France's five million Muslims, is furious at what he sees as a persecution of his religion, pointing out that fewer than 2,000 French Muslims actually wear the full veil.

He has begun a campaign to fight the law and he's pledged one million euros of his own money to pay the fines of any Muslim convicted. Speaking outside the National Assembly, Nekkaz said: "One million sounds a lot, but to protect one's liberty it's not much, and I hope that others in this country who hold the constitution dear and want to protect our fundamental liberty will join me in fighting this law."

The debonair Nekkaz, a shining example of an integrated, modern French Muslim (he was born in France to Algerian parents), has set up a campaign group called 'Hands off my Constitution', and plans to raise the €1m by selling some of the properties he owns in the Parisian suburbs.

Rich Muslim vows to pay all French burka fines

French burqa ban, Iranian mullets: Faith and the fashion police

The Washington Post's Edward Cody reported Tuesday that the French parliament's lower house voted 335-1 to ban its female citizens from wearing the burqa or similar Islamic facial veils. The legislation imposes a $185 fine or compulsory 'citizen lessons' to any woman found violating the measure, which awaits final vote in the Senate.

Do the citizen lessons include tips on how to wear the beret, instead?


The legislation's advocates say that the full facial coverings undermine French values and oppress women. But in previous protests over the legislation, veiled French women have chanted the mantra "Where is France? Where is tolerance? The veil is my choice."

In another faith and fashion moment, last week the Iranian government announced a ban on 'decadent' Western haircuts in order to "confront the cultural assault by the West."

On the Iranian chopping block?: The very anti-authoritarian American mullet as well as the manlytail -otherwise known as the male ponytail. Who knew David Beckham, Andre Aggasi and Chuck Norris were so subversive?

Gawker called the mullet ban "a move of government oppression we can sort of get behind" and bloggers had a field day.

But France and Iran's clash with 'the other' in their midsts is profoundly serious.

France struggles to understand and assimilate its Muslim population (5 million strong), while Iran's religious regime lurches for control over its progressive populace. Both states want to legislate what not to wear, despite the desires of their citizens. In the French example, the government seeks to keep the sacred out of the secular; in Iran, the religious government wants to keep the secular West out of its Islamic state.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/07/french_veil_ban_iranian_mullets_faith_and_the_fashion_police.html#more?hpid=talkbox1 

The controversial issue of banning the veil has taken the Europe by storm. One after other country is endorsing the idea against some Muslim women the wearing of the veil that covers them from head to toe.

There seem to be unanimity towards accepting the majority view on such dress norms but there is little effort to explain the reasons why this is necessary to do so.

Some analysis have come out as counter the 'ban veil' propaganda and it is necessary to bring them into circulation so that the one sided cacophony on this issue should not become a gospel of truth.

Five arguments are commonly made in favor of the proposed ban of Veil. First, it is argued that security requires people to show their faces when appearing in public places.

Second, argument says that the kind of transparency and reciprocity proper to relations between citizens is impeded by covering part of the face.

Third, Veil is a symbol of male domination that symbolizes the objectification of women and they are being seen as mere objects.

Fourth women wear the Veil because they are coerced. The last being, Veil per se is unhealthy, because it is hot and uncomfortable!

Martha Nussbaum an American philosopher with a particular interest in political philosophy and ethics and has written extensively on gender and social justice has come out with some cogent arguments that demolishes the entire five propositions advanced in campaign of the banning of the veil.

Counter Arguments To 'Ban Veil' Controversy

Female circumcision will be inflicted on up to 2,000 British schoolgirls during the summer holidays – leaving brutal physical and emotional scars. Yet there have been no prosecutions against the practice

....

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said today that music is "not compatible" with the values of the Islamic republic, and should not be practised or taught in the country.

In some of the most extreme comments by a senior regime figure since the 1979 revolution, Khamenei said: "Although music is halal, promoting and teaching it is not compatible with the highest values of the sacred regime of the Islamic Republic."

Khamenei's comments came in response to a request for a ruling by a 21-year-old follower of his, who was thinking of starting music lessons, but wanted to know if they were acceptable according to Islam, the semi-official Fars news agency reported. "It's better that our dear youth spend their valuable time in learning science and essential and useful skills and fill their time with sport and healthy recreations instead of music," he said.

Unlike other clerics in Iran, whose religious rulings are practised by their own followers, Khamenei's views are interpreted as administrative orders for the whole country, which must be obeyed by the government. Last month Khamenei issued a controversial fatwa in which he likened his leadership to that of the Prophet Muhammad and obliged all Iranians to obey his orders.

------------------

Yes... learn science and dice religion...

Fairness is the only issue in a witness's request to keep her face covered.

There "will never be a substitute for the face of a man, with his soul in it", Charles Dickens famously wrote. A window into a person's conscience is supposedly what the face provides. The faces of liars, in particular, reveal them, or so television programs such as Lie to Me would have us believe. Hence the alarm over a Perth fraud case in which a woman's entitlement to testify for the prosecution while wearing a face-covering burqa or niqab is in dispute.

Yet there is clearly more at stake in this case than jurors' and judges' ability to assess witness veracity. Commentary would have an entirely different tenor if the facial concealment took another form.

Consider, for instance, a scenario in which a recent burns victim is called to give evidence. Imagine it is possible for her to remove the protective bandages she wears over her face, but to do so would cause pain and distress. Politicians and pundits would be unlikely to speak of such a case in the charged register in which the Perth fraud trial of Muslim school director Anwar Sayed has been discussed.

The issue before the court is undoubtedly a difficult and serious one. International human rights treaty provisions, by which Australia is bound, guarantee the right of those facing a criminal charge to have witnesses testifying for them examined under the same conditions as witnesses testifying against them.

Sensibly, it is the accused's right to a fair trial that defence counsel have focused on in their submissions to Judge Shauna Deane, who is to make her decision on the matter on August 19.

Yet the ability of judges and jurors to see witnesses' faces, and otherwise assess witness credibility, is regularly compromised in Australian courts.

The identity of undercover police and other informers may be concealed while they are giving evidence, so as not to jeopardise ongoing law-enforcement operations. Vulnerable witnesses, such as children or those suffering from an intellectual disability, are able to give evidence by live video link, or even through a prior video recording. Special arrangements are also made for witnesses who are physically disabled or who, for a range of reasons including their relationship to the accused, are likely to suffer emotional trauma or distress if required to appear in court.

Such measures affect the ability of defendants to test the credibility of the evidence against them, and the ability of judge and jury to assess the veracity of that evidence. But they are considered necessary to protect other interests, including national security, public safety and the integrity of our legal processes. The courts balance the accused's right to a fair trial and other public interests.

In this case, the judge must balance Sayed's right.

Judge To Rule On Burqa Removal

G'day John,

Having served on many juries and heard various "forepersons" immediately judge the guilt or innocence of an individual, skewed by so many biases even down to the "low forehead" I have come to a conclusion that for any person to get a "fair go" in our Courts of Law, media involvement in particular must be avoided.

I believe that the methods of some countries to hide the identity and sex of witnesses is much better than depending on a non-existent bias of, what used to be, land owner's Juries.

I regretted my involvement in some concerning the Americans in the Vietnam war, although in the last one I agreed with the Judgment that the American had been used by the old "that's my Wife trick".

The advertized reasons for outlawing the Burqua loses its value when it is accepted that the importance of the evidence given is true or false.  Even my own thoughts concerning the suicide bombers, of any sex, still bears scrutiny when it can be avoided by proper Court authorities.

However, to gain truth from a person of whatever race or religion, we should try to make them at ease and have the Judge, not a Jury, consider whether that evidence is sworn and abides by the law of that nation. Then when the “motion judge” decides that all relevant and legal arguments have been made, the decision of guilt or innocence should be decided by the nation’s independantly programmed computer. Once the guilt or otherwise of the accused is established, the already in vogue penalties for the crime are for the judge to decide.

To do otherwise is to go back to the days of Dickens.

I am vigorously opposed to anonymity in any situation.  A citizen is entitled to defend themselves to accusers but, they must be informed of the identity of the accuser, otherwise Justice is avoided by omission.

Once that is established then Justice and the laws of that nation will be as close to universal equality as I can imagine.

Cheers mate.

Ern G.

Hi Ernest.

'A citizen is entitled to defend themselves to accusers but, they must be informed of the identity of the accuser, otherwise Justice is avoided by omission.'

I'm with you Ernest however, as long as we permit secret witnesses to give evidence in our courts; as long as evidence is permitted from behind screens; as long as our courts will accept 'evidence' which is treated as secret & not even available to the accused; as long as 'evidence' gained through torture, extortion, blackmail or other so-called 'plea-bargaining' methods, then I'll argue in favour of a witness being able to give evidence wearing a burqua, veil or any other form of dress that reflects their beliefs.

As I think I've mentioned previously Ernest, nothing riles me more than sanctimonious hypocrisy: something that we in the west practice with persistent & monotonous regularity, whilst we busily lecture those less fortunate than ourselves about how we think they should think, dream & live.

Our stupid, dishonest & deceitful politicians often regale us with 'feel-good' shouts about how those on the outside of our tent want to destroy us because of our values, when the truth is that they wish only that our values & the horse they rode in on would simply go away & leave them alone.

May the burqua survive as a reminder of how low we've sunk ... how can we lecture others about their beliefs when our own so-called democracy has fallen into such disrepute?

A Perth judge has ruled that a Muslim woman must remove her burqa while giving evidence in a fraud trial.

Judge Shauna Deane delivered her decision in the District Court today, saying it only applied to the case in question and did not set a precedent.

Prosecution witness Tasneem, 36, who does not wish her surname to be published, has worn the burqa since the age of 17 and wanted to wear it while giving evidence.

The fraud trial of former Muslim school director Anwar Sayed is due to resume with a new jury in October.

Sayed is accused of fraudulently obtaining up to $752,000 in state and federal grants by falsifying roll numbers for the Muslim Ladies College of Australia in Kenwick, south of Perth, in 2006.

The defence had raised concerns about how the jury could be expected to read the woman's facial expressions if they could not see her face.

---------------------

Gus: would we accept the testimony of a Hells Angels bikie in full helmet gear hiding his/her face? I don't think so... Service stations do not allow people wearing helmets inside... They're not allowed to get petrol...

Country's strict enforcement of sharia law sees 'eye for an eye' punishment sought for after cleaver attack

A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals whether they would punitively damage a man's spinal cord after he was convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralysing him, local newspapers reported today.

Saudi Arabia enforces strict sharia law and occasionally metes out punishments based on the ancient code of an eye for an eye.

Abdul-Aziz al-Mutairi, 22, was left paralysed after a fight more than two years ago, and asked a judge to impose an equivalent punishment on his attacker under sharia law, reports said.

The newspaper Okaz said the judge in northwestern Tabuk province, identified as Saoud bin Suleiman al-Youssef, asked at least two hospitals for a medical opinion on whether surgeons could render the attacker's spinal cord nonfunctional.

The attacker, who was not identified, has spent seven months in jail. The reports cited the letter of response from one of the hospitals and the victim.

Two of the hospitals involved and the court were closed for the Saudi weekend beginning today and could not be reached for comment.

from Robert Fisk

Officially, Egypt has no "honour" killings. Young women may commit suicide, yes, but they are never murdered. This is the government line – and of course, it is a lie. The files in Azza Suleiman's Centre for Egyptian Women's Legal Assistance office – and in those of other NGOs in Cairo – tell the truth. In May of 2007, a farmer in southern Egypt decapitated his daughter after discovering she had a boyfriend. In March of 2008, a man identified only as "Mursi" electrocuted and beat to death his 17-year-old daughter because she had received a phone call from her boyfriend. "Mursi", a farmer from Kafr el-Sheikh in the Nile Delta, admitted he "beat her with a large stick" before finishing her off with electric shocks; the murder was only discovered when the body turned up at the local hospital.

...

read more at the Guardian

There is a growing push in the Arab world to have men responsible for so-called honour killings treated as murderers by the courts.

Every year hundreds of women are killed by their husbands or brothers or another male family member for supposedly bringing shame on their families.

In many countries the honour killers are given leniency. Many men are not charged, or they spend only a few days or weeks in custody.

But Palestinian human rights groups have recently drafted their own amendments to have them treated as murderers.

Khaled Mahmoud, 21, admits beating his sister to death last year in the West Bank.

"She has made very wrong decisions," he said.

"I started drinking then I got crazy. When I saw her I beat her. I smashed her head to the wall."

His sister Asmaa - not her real name - was 23, a university student, and engaged to be married to another Muslim.

As brother and sister they were close, yet Mahmoud says she made the unforgivable mistake of sleeping with another man, a Christian, and brought enormous shame on the family.

"I was telling her that she should stay away from him and she shouldn't talk to him because he was playing," Mahmoud said.

"He wasn't serious with her and he is bragging about what he was doing. I was so ashamed with my sister."

Mahmoud says it is hard to describe how he felt after killing his sister.

A ban on wearing the full Islamic veil in the Netherlands will be part of the government's programme under a pact to form a coalition, party leaders say.

The Liberals and Christian Democrats have had to make concessions to anti-Islamist Geert Wilders to gain his support for their minority coalition.

The deal ends months of deadlock but still needs to be ratified by Christian Democrats in a meeting on Saturday.

The pact includes plans for budget cuts of 18bn euros ($24bn; £15bn) by 2015.

It also tightens rules on immigration and boosts the number of police officers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11448088

France's constitutional court has approved the law set to ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public.

It approved it almost in its entirety, making one small change: the law will not apply to public places of worship where it may violate religious freedom.

The proposed measure had already been passed by parliament. It is due to come into force next spring.

The ban has strong public support, but critics point out that only a handful of French Muslims wear the full veil.

The law makes it illegal to wear garments such as the niqab or burka, which incorporate a full-face veil, anywhere in public.

Under the ban, persons found wearing a full veil in public will face a fine of 150 euros (£130) and/or a citizenship course.

Those found to force women to wear a full veil will face a 30,000-euro fine and a one-year jail term.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11496459

Saudi women activists expressed outrage and confusion at a new fatwa challenging a government initiative to allow women to work as cashiers in supermarkets and department stores.

The fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, issued on Sunday by the kingdom's governing body of clerics, said the cashier jobs were not permissible because they resulted in the women mixing with unrelated men, which is prohibited under Saudi Arabia's ultra-strict form of Islam.

Signed by the country's grand mufti and six other top clerics, it contradicted a push by the government to create new jobs for women, who face high unemployment in the kingdom.

According to figures reported in April, unemployment among Saudi women was 28.4 percent in 2009, up from 26.9 percent in 2008.

"The progressive women are all outraged," said Fawzia al-Bakr, a professor at Riyadh's King Saud University.

"It is not just about a woman working as a cashier... There are more than 60,000 women university graduates looking for jobs, so this is a big thing."

Reem Asaad, a Jeddah economics professor, called the fatwa an attack on efforts like her campaign to create more jobs for women.

"It's an organised war to stop what we are trying to do," she said, adding that "we don't know what will happen now."

Objections also poured in from men and women on the internet.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/03/3055455.htm?section=justin

A Pakistani court has sentenced to death a Christian mother of five for blasphemy, the first such conviction of a woman and sparking protests from rights groups.

Asia Bibi, 45, was sentenced on Monday by a court in Nankana district in Pakistan's central province Punjab, about 75 kilometres west of the country's cultural capital of Lahore.

Pakistan has yet to execute anyone for blasphemy, but the case spotlights the Muslim country's controversial laws on the subject, which human rights activists say encourages Islamist extremism in a nation wracked by Taliban attacks.

Ms Bibi's case dates back to June 2009 when she was asked to fetch water while out working in the fields.

But a group of Muslim women labourers objected, saying that as a non-Muslim, she should not touch the water bowl.

A few days later the women went to a local cleric and alleged that Ms Bibi made made derogatory remarks about the Prophet Muhammad.

The cleric went to police, who opened an investigation.

She was arrested in Ittanwalai village and prosecuted under Section 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code, which carries the death penalty.

Sentencing her to hang, Judge Naveed Iqbal "totally ruled out" any chance that Ms Bibi was falsely implicated and said there were "no mitigating circumstances", according to a copy of the verdict.

Ms Bibi's husband Ashiq Masih, 51, said that he would appeal against her death sentence, which needs to be upheld by the Lahore High Court, the highest court in Punjab, before it can be carried out.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/outcry-over-death-sentence-for-blasphemy-mother-who-offered-farmhands-water-20101112-17pri.html

At the Badam Bagh women's prison in Kabul, home to 150 female inmates and 70 of their children, the chief warden, Lt Col Zarafshan, lowers her voice. "Because of my pain, my hurt and my sense of injustice, I am telling you this," she says. "If we had a good justice system only about ten of these women would be in prison."

Although I see an occasional rat scuttling across the floor, and there is a somewhat putrid smell in the air, the conditions at Badam Bagh - it means 'The Almond Orchard' - are not as bad as I had expected. What is harrowing is the parody of justice.

Afghan women can still be imprisoned for "moral crimes". These include running away from home, defying family wishes regarding the choice of a spouse, adultery and elopement.

A recent UN report stated that at least half of women imprisoned in Afghanistan are there for moral crimes. Zarafshan puts the proportion a lot higher.

She summons into her office Gul-Khanum, a 44-year-old woman from a rural district. She has two ink spots on her forehead and chin: ­ traditional markings tattooed on the most beautiful young girls. But now she has knife scars running down her neck, arms and face. Her thumb has been crudely sewn back on where a bullet went through her hand.

IT HAS become a lightning rod in the public debate about the right of Muslim women to wear the burqa, attracting protests, the censure of a mayor and messages of support from talkback radio.

But now the Newtown mural of a woman in a full-face Muslim covering with a strike symbol over her face and the words ''Say No to the Burqa'' is the subject of an anti-discrimination complaint.

Cigdem Aydemir, 27, a Muslim, artist and high-school art teacher, said she felt ''completely offended and insulted'' when she saw the mural pop up in her neighbourhood.

The work of a local artist, Sergio Redegalli, the piece adorns a wall of his studio facing the street and the busy rail line.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/complaint-lodged-over-burqa-mural-20101125-18967.html

The Sharia law has been a hot debate. The arguments has not yet over. According to Shariah law, Muslims are not allowed to spend money on businesses that derive substantial gain from interest, as Muslims look at this to be usury. Here is the proof: Shariah Islamic stock index opens in India To be able to leave the opening for those Muslims who do want to invest within the confines of Shariah, the Bombay Stock exchange (BSE) and 2 other Islamic investment groups have created an Islamic stock index for Muslims in India. Listed as the Bombay Stock exchange TASIS Shariah fifty, the index picks the top fifty corporations within the Bombay Stock exchange 500 with liquid stocks that are Shariah-compliant.

Men and women have been banned from shaking hands in a district of Somalia controlled by the Islamist group al-Shabab.

Under the ban imposed in the southern town of Jowhar, men and women who are not related are also barred from walking together or chatting in public.

It is the first time such social restrictions have been introduced.

The al-Shabab administration said those who disobeyed the new rules would be punished according to Sharia law.

The BBC's Mohamed Moalimuu in Mogadishu says the penalty would probably be a public flogging.

The militant group has already banned music in areas that it controls, which include most of central and southern Somalia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12138627

A Pakistani politician has ended her attempt to amend the country's blasphemy laws after the government said it would not allow any changes.

The announcement was made by Sherry Rehman, an MP and prominent member of the governing Pakistan People's Party.

Her decision comes as Human Rights Watch urged the government to release a teenager accused of blaspheming against the Prophet Muhammad.

The law has been under scrutiny since a Christian was sentenced to death.

Asia Bibi denies insulting Muhammad in her Punjab village in June 2009. She was condemned to death in November.

In a statement Ms Rahman stressed that she had not agreed with the PPP to "withdraw" her private member's bill.

"There was never any question of withdrawing the bill as the Speaker had never admitted it on the agenda," she said.

"Since the PM announced that there cannot even be discussion on procedural amendments, and the committee announced by the party to amend the laws has been disbanded, then as a Pakistan People's Party representative I had no option but to abide by the party's decision in parliament.

"But appeasement of extremism is a policy that will have its blowback."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12355001

Police in Bangladesh have arrested four Islamic clerics after a teenage girl accused of having a relationship with a married man was whipped to death.

The clerics were accused of ordering Mosammet Hena, 14, to receive 100 lashes in a fatwa, or religious edict, at a village in south-western Shariatpur district, the area's police chief, AKM Shahidur Rahman, said. The area is 35 miles from the capital, Dhaka.

Fatwas are illegal in Bangladesh, but Islamic clerics sometimes preside over courts that use sharia law and issue fatwas to deal with issues such as extramarital relationships.

Rahman said the girl collapsed after she was lashed in public with a bamboo cane about 70 times on Monday. She was taken to a hospital where she died the same day.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/03/bangladesh-clerics-arrested-after-girl-whipped

A Christian lawyer in Malaysia has failed in her attempt to be allowed to practise in the Muslim Shariah courts.

Victoria Jayaseele Martin said she wanted to appear for non-Muslim clients fighting in such courts, to provide them with fairer representation.

An increasing number of cases heard in the Islamic courts involve both Muslims and non-Muslims.

Malaysia runs two parallel legal systems.

The civil courts cater to its non-Muslim citizens while the Islamic system decides issues affecting the fate of the country's Muslim majority.

A judge in Kuala Lumpur dismissed her challenge to the decision of a religious council that all lawyers in Islamic courts must be Muslim.

Ms Jayaseele Martin, who says the bar is unconstitutional, plans to appeal against the judge's decision.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12768939

An Iraqi immigrant in the United States has been jailed for 34 years for killing his daughter because she had become too Westernised.

He fled the US after the murder but was caught in London and sent back to Arizona.

According to court reports, Faleh al-Maleki wanted his daughter Noor to follow Iraqi traditions, but she wanted to be a typical American girl.

When she was 17, she refused to enter into an arranged marriage in Iraq and two years later she moved in with her boyfriend and his mother Amal Khalaf.

In 2009, Faleh al-Maleki deliberately rammed down his daughter and Khalaf as they walked across a carpark.

Her boyfriend's mother survived, but 20-year-old Noor died after being in a coma for two weeks.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/17/3193695.htm?section=justin

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — When a group of activists proposed banning circumcision in San Francisco last fall, many people simply brushed them aside. Even in that liberal seaside city, it seemed implausible that thousands of people would support an effort to outlaw an ancient ritual that Jews and Muslims believe fulfills a commandment issued by God.

But last month, the group collected the more than 7,100 signatures needed to get a measure on the fall ballot that would make it illegal to snip the foreskin of a minor within city limits. Now a similar effort is under way in Santa Monica to get such a measure on the ballot for November 2012.

If the anticircumcision activists (they prefer the term “intactivists”) have their way, cities across the country may be voting on whether to criminalize a practice that is common in many American hospitals. Activists say the measures would protect children from an unnecessary medical procedure, calling it “male genital mutilation.”

“This is the furthest we’ve gotten, and it is a huge step for us,” said Matthew Hess, an activist based in San Diego who wrote both bills.

Mr. Hess has created similar legislation for states across the country, but those measures never had much traction. Now he is fielding calls from people who want to organize similar movements in their cities.

“This is a conversation we are long overdue to have in this country,” he said. “The end goal for us is making cutting boys’ foreskin a federal crime.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/us/05circumcision.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Religious intolerance is a daily reality in Europe. Mainly targeted at Muslims, attacks on religious pluralism focus on refusing to share public space with non-majority religions or only tolerating practices seen as "secular". The key voices of intolerance are neither marginal nor can they be dismissed as old-style far-right activists. They are today often heads of government, important ministers, or powerful politicians.

Their words express an emerging refrain of official xenophobia. Successive recent salvos by French president Nicolas Sarkozy and German chancellor Angela Merkel on the failure of multiculturalism in countries where that policy has never been promoted, and British Prime Minister David Cameron's February speech associating multiculturalism with Islamic terrorism are among the latest examples.

The desire to make Islam invisible has resulted not just in stigmatising speeches, but also in new laws, On November 29, 2009, 57.5 per cent of Swiss citizens voting in a popular referendum agreed to forbid the building of new minarets in their country. This appears part of a broad European trend. After the 2004 ban of the veil in France's public schools as an ostentatious religious symbol, a new law came into force on April 11, 2011 that bans the wearing of the face veil (niqab or burqa) in "public places" throughout France — defined as everywhere except one's home, car, workplace or mosque. A recent study published by the Open Society Foundation found that less than 2000 women wear the face veil in France. Many have already suffered insults and sometimes physical harassment. The new law will encourage only more abuse. Yet Christian religious processions that require face-covering hoods are still allowed.

I was the recipient of a curse from a goat herder once...I told him (in the local lingo) that the curse would fall back on him... At that point, the angry goat herder PANICKED....

Meanwhile read: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/7608#comment-10611

LOS ANGELES — The primary backer of an effort to get a ban on circumcision on the ballot in Santa Monica is abandoning her push, saying the proposed legislation had been misrepresented as an effort to impinge on religious freedom. A similar measure in San Francisco is scheduled for a fall vote.

The woman, Jena Troutman, a mother of two boys who began the process of trying to get a ban on the Santa Monica municipal ballot in 2012, said the news media had distorted the effort.

“The religious opposition really rose up, and I never intended it to be about that at all,” Ms. Troutman said. “Ninety-five percent of babies who are circumcised have nothing to do with religion — that’s what I was focused on. Once I discovered this bill was not going to open up the conversation but was closing it down, I wanted no part of it.”

Ms. Troutman said she wanted to focus on educating parents through the Web site she runs, wholebabyrevolution.com.

In recent days, criticism of the two measures had focused on their author, Matthew Hess, who lives in San Diego and created an online comic called “Foreskin Man,” which features characters like “Monster Mohel.” Several organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, said the comic relied on anti-Semitic imagery.

Mr. Hess defended the comic, saying it was intended to be from a baby’s point of view. “It was designed to really evoke a response that talking about studies and statistics never does,” Mr. Hess said. “What would that baby be thinking other than ‘That man coming at me with a knife is a monster’?”

Mr. Hess said Tuesday that he was optimistic about the prospect of the ban passing in San Francisco.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/us/08circumcise.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

New South Wales police conducting routine car stops will be given the power to demand the removal of head coverings for identification.

Premier Barry O'Farrell says cabinet approved the move on Monday so police could properly identify motorists or any other people suspected of committing a crime.

"I don't care whether a person is wearing a motorcycle helmet, a burka, niqab, face veil or anything else, the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear," he said in a statement.

"I have every respect for various religions and beliefs but when it comes to enforcing the law the police should be given adequate powers to make a clear identification."

Mr O'Farrell says there has to be a balance between religious customs and a police officer's ability to do their job.

"It's also an issue with other religions. It's also an issue with other cultures," he said.

"But whether it's a driver's licence or passing through customs, identity checks are required in this day and age and we're determined to ensure police have the powers to undertake them when required."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/04/3260783.htm

Islamic leaders say they are comfortable with the New South Wales Government's decision to give police the power to demand the removal of burkas and other face veils.

Cabinet approved the changes late yesterday to bolster police powers during routine car stops if they have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has been committed.

The Western Australian Government is also considering the introduction of the laws that apply to all face coverings, including helmets.

The Islamic Council of New South Wales says it accepts the decision, while the Muslim Women's Association says it has no problem if the powers are handled sensitively.

Islamic council chairman Khaled Sukkarieh says "nobody wants to break the law".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/05/3261106.htm?section=justin

A man has been charged over an alleged sharia law punishment where a Sydney man was lashed 40 times in his bed.

Police say the 31-year-old victim woke to find four bearded men in his bedroom at Silverwater, in the city's west, about 1:00am (AEST) on Sunday.

The men allegedly held him down on his bed and lashed him with a cable 40 times during the 30-minute ordeal.

The victim has told police he did not know the men, but they were punishing him under sharia law for drinking alcohol.

Representatives of Sydney's Muslim community have condemned the attack.

Detectives arrested a 20-year-old man at his Auburn home last night.

He has been charged with aggravated break and enter and committing a serious indictable offence.

The man was kept in custody overnight to face Burwood Local Court today.

Police say officers were assaulted by a 16-year-old boy during a search of another Auburn home.

The teenager has been ordered to face court next month charged with assault, resisting arrest and hindering police.

Police say they are still looking for the other attackers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-19/sharia-lashing-190711/2799862

A law has come into force in Belgium banning women from wearing the full Islamic veil in public.

The country is the second European Union nation after France to enforce such a ban. Offenders face a fine of 137.5 euros (£121; $197) and up to seven days in jail.

Two women who wear full veils launched an immediate court challenge, saying the law is discriminatory.

France, home to Europe's biggest Muslim population, enforced its ban in April.

Belgium's law bans any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer in places like parks and on the street.

It was passed almost unanimously by the lower house of parliament in April 2010.

MPs voted with only two abstentions to back the legislation on the grounds of security, to allow police to identify people.

Other MPs said that full face veils such as the burka or the niqab were a symbol of the oppression of women.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14261921

The judge in the case said Breivik - who was arrested after massacring 68 people on the island of Utoya - had admitted the facts of the case but had not pleaded guilty.

In a manifesto posted online under the Anglicised pseudonym Andrew Berwick, the killer quoted Mr Howard, former treasurer Peter Costello, Catholic Cardinal George Pell and conservative writer and historian Keith Windschuttle.

The manifesto includes discussions of European history and Islam as well as instructions on how to buy arms and equipment over the internet and how to plan high-impact terrorist attacks.

Saying Mr Howard had urged Islamic migrants to adopt Australian values, Breivik noted the former prime minister "caused outrage in Australia's Islamic community when he said Muslims needed to speak English and show respect to women".

He praised the Howard government's border protection policies: "They have taken serious steps towards actually enforcing their own borders [and] despite the predictable outcries from various NGOs and anti-racists, prime minister John Howard has repeatedly proven to be one of the most sensible leaders in the Western world."

Breivik also mentioned Mr Costello in the document, saying the former treasurer wanted Islamic immigrants to adopt Australian ways.

"Federal treasurer Peter Costello said Australian Muslim leaders need to stand up and publicly denounce terrorism in all its forms. Mr Costello has also backed calls by prime minister John Howard for Islamic migrants to adopt Australian values," the manifesto says.

At the time of publication Mr Howard had not returned calls from the ABC requesting comment.

In a statement, Mr Costello told ABC News Online that Breivik had "committed a monstrous crime".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-26/breivik-manifesto-praises-australian-conservatives/2810730

Three Muslim men from Derby have become the first people in Britain to be convicted of inciting hatred on the grounds of sexuality after they distributed leaflets calling for gay people to be killed.

In a landmark case, a jury at Derby crown court ruled that Ihjaz Ali, Kabir Ahmed and Razwan Javed had breached hate crime legislation by handing out the leaflets outside the Jama mosque, in Rosehill Street, Derby, in July 2010, as well as putting them through nearby letterboxes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets

Meanwhile:

Homophobia is actually quite a kind, forgiving word. It is really quite generous. It is saying, “look, it’s OK. Your discomfort around gay people is just because you don’t really understand them. You’re unfamiliar with them, that’s all. Once you overcome that fear, once you see that, you know, we’re all just people, we’ll be fine”.

But this is not about fear. The MPs who would deny marriage to gay people are not, I think, afraid of gay people. I think that they fundamentally believe that gay people are vastly inferior to heterosexuals: and I fear that what underlies this belief is not a transient misunderstanding, still less a passionate commitment to Scripture, but a firm, unyielding contempt.

Many may flock to doctrine to defend the position that the MPs have taken. In response to that, I quote someone widely regarded as one of the most compassionate of Christians. In his foreword to “Sex, Love and Homophobia”, a publication by Amnesty International, Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote of the shameful treatment worldwide of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “We treat them as pariahs and push them outside our communities, he wrote. “We make them doubt that they too are children of God – and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are.”

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/20/this-anti-gay-marriage-stance-is-far-worse-than-homophobic/

THE CASE of a teenage rape victim in Morocco who committed suicide after she was forced to marry her attacker has caused outrage and led to demands that the country, usually seen as a liberal voice in the Muslim world, changes its laws.

Amina Filali killed herself earlier this month after drinking rat poison in the town of Larache, halfway between Rabat and Tangiers.

According to the BBC, when the 16-year-old girl's family told the authorities she had been raped they were advised to let her attacker marry her, to preserve their honour. As a result Filali was then forced to marry the man she had accused, and when she complained to her relatives that he had beaten her she was disowned.

It was then that the desperate girl drank rat poison. But, according to witnesses, that was not the end of her suffering. Her husband became so enraged when he realised what had happened that he dragged her down the street by her hair as she died.

After a long fight, Ms Khan found a religious leader sympathetic to her plight and the marriage was annulled.

But saying no to an arranged marriage is not easy.

Al-Ghazzali Islamic Centre president Afroz Ali says there can be a lot of pressure on a woman to accept the marriage.

"I have seen situations where people have been coerced, that if you do not marry such and such a person we will cut you out of the family," he said.

"In some cases, they would be taken back to their land, the land of the father or the mother for example, and potentially, you know, threatened with not only physical violence, but potentially fatalities and murder."

Ms Roxon is introducing legislation which seeks to make forcing someone into marriage illegal.

"Duress, violence, intimidation, is not an acceptable way to get a young woman's consent to marriage," she said.

"It will be a part of the crimes act that deals with trafficking of people, sexual offences and others.

"It's a serious matter - it will be treated as a serious crime and people should understand that in Australia, marriage is between consenting adults and that consent must be real."

Despite the backlash from some in her community, Ms Khan has chosen to speak publicly of her experience.

"Just do not let anyone force you and say to you, 'do it for your parents' sake, or do it because people are going to talk or you'll get rewarded'," she said.

"No they won't, they won't get rewarded.

"You won't get rewarded for being in a forced marriage."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-02/forced-marriage-an-issue-in-australia/3926708

"Disparition" is the work of Yemeni artist Bouchra Almutawakel

Even after the taunts and threats for appearing on TV, and whispered criticism of "immodest" outfits, the attack on actor sisters Areza and Tamana, and their friend Benafsha, came as a surprise.

The trio were minutes from moving out of a neighbourhood in which conservative locals made them feel unwelcome, walking to meet a minivan full of their possessions, when six men surrounded them in a lane, lined with high-walled compounds. They left Benafsha bleeding to death outside a mosque with stab wounds, and the injured sisters desperately seeking help.

"I didn't see the TV programme, I just heard the local boys saying that one of them played a role with boys," said Yaqin Ali Khalili, owner of a shop that the women frequented. "The hatred of the people here is the reason she was killed, I am 100% sure," he added.

Word travels fast in Kabul, and within a couple of days other female actors were being intimidated. A prominent young actor, Sahar Parniyan, received death threats and has gone into hiding. On the rare occasions she still ventures out she has to wear the burqas she used to despise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/06/afghanistan-attack-female-actors