Senator Cory Bernardi writes on the need to protect Australian culture and freedom.
France has taken the first significant step towards banning the veil of Islamic oppression - the burqa.
One French minister said the veil "amounts to being cut off from society and rejecting the very spirit of the French republic that is founded on a desire to live together.”
"At a time where our societies are becoming more global and complex, the French people are pondering the future of their nation. Our responsibility is to show vigilance and reaffirm our commonly-shared values.”
The vote in the lower house of the French Parliament was "a victory for democracy and for French values."
I couldn't agree more.
Replace the references to France in the passages above with Australia and things aren't so different.
We all need to constantly reaffirm the values that unite us rather than appease the customs that isolate some from their fellow Australians.
For too long, political correctness has allowed the power of vocal minorities to intimidate, cajole, bully or shout down any critics who dare question their 'rights'. The fact that these so called 'rights' conflict with the rights of others or the essence of our democracy is conveniently forgotten as labels of racist, bigot and intolerant are the standard ad hominem return of fire.
In today's politically correct world, such slurs have the power to wreck promising careers and stifle any rational examination of the issues that confront us. One such issue is religious extremism.
Now I admit to being a Christian - certainly a flawed and failed one - but nevertheless, I continue to strive toward a more virtuous life. I am also very tolerant of other recognised religions and have defended the rights afforded them under our Constitution in the Parliament, even when I have disagreed with the very premise of their faith.
However, when the same PC brigade that regularly insists upon the separation of church and state defends the extremism of the so-called 'religious' whose political agenda is contrary to the very foundation of our nation, then it's time to take a stand.
If you haven't already guessed, I am referring to fundamentalist Islam, whose adherents wish to impose sharia (or Islamic) law in Australia. These are the same groups that insist the full face veil is a requirement for women to live an Islamic life. To me, concealment of the face is akin to slavery as it voids the individual identity in favour of their submission to Islam and sharia.
You might also be interested to know that sharia also advocates stoning to death people who commit adultery or seek to renounce the Islamic faith. This is a system where women are considered as second class citizens and homosexuals can be hanged. To most Australians, such a culture would be considered a return to a more primitive and barbaric time. It’s as unwelcome as it is foreign.
Why then are there defenders of what I consider the most public symbol of fundamentalist Islam in Australia - the face covering veil? It beggars belief that these civil rights activists don't recognise that they are defending a political agenda that has the cessation of civil rights as its ultimate goal.
In our age of PC intolerance any criticism of such a repressive garment is met with hysterical criticism and indignant shrieks demanding individual freedoms.
Now, freedom is a serious matter and all governments strive to achieve a balance between anarchy and tyranny. However, where our freedoms are being used to undermine the very system that ensures those freedoms, we have to respond.
Appeasement, in any form, of the fundamentalist Islamic agenda will be a nail in the coffin of our fragile democracy. While this may seem an alarmist comment, the evidence of such actions in other nations is evident. In some countries (such as England), sharia law operates in parallel with western law in a number of areas. In Australia, already there are calls for sharia law to operate in regard to finance, divorce and property settlements. The Gillard Government is even considering legislative amendments to appease sharia finance advocates.
This is the first step in a process that will undermine our democratic ideals and the belief that our laws apply equally to all.
Already we have groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) holding their international congress in Sydney with their accompanying message calling for Muslims to rebel against democracy and the rule of western law. HT openly seeks the destruction of democracies and the establishment of an Islamic super-state. It also publicly supports terrorism against Israel. This group has been banned in many other nations due to their links to hate groups and terror, yet our own security service (ASIO) recommended against a similar ban in 2007.
In the United Kingdom, despite a similar recommendation from their national security agency, the Conservative Government has pledged to “ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir” as part of their national security platform.
I recognise there might not be concrete evidence that they are involved in terror or violence in Australia, but common sense says we shouldn't be indulging in hosting adherents to such extremist beliefs. What does it say about our nation when these anti-semitic extremists can gather in Australia but are banned from doing so in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Holland, Germany and Pakistan?
Now I know we are different to the nations I just mentioned. We have different values and a different culture. However, every nation has a duty to protect and defend its own culture. Unfortunately, too many Australians appear unwilling or uninterested in doing exactly that.
The greatest threat to freedom is the tyranny of government, yet our democratic government is often the last line in defence of our freedom. When we have groups and organisations that are using our freedoms to overturn our system of government in an attempt to impose an antiquated and brutal regime, we cannot feign tolerance.
It is time we learned from the experience of the French, the Belgians, the Dutch, the Swiss and the British. We need to stop the expansion of fundamentalist Islam in Australia lest we lose the foundation, the essence, the very culture of our great nation.
Defending our culture can start with an effective ban on the burqa and groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir. In fact, our future freedom may depend on it.
I couldn't agree more.
Replace the references to France in the passages above with Australia and things aren't so different.
We all need to constantly reaffirm the values that unite us rather than appease the customs that isolate some from their fellow Australians.
For too long, political correctness has allowed the power of vocal minorities to intimidate, cajole, bully or shout down any critics who dare question their 'rights'. The fact that these so called 'rights' conflict with the rights of others or the essence of our democracy is conveniently forgotten as labels of racist, bigot and intolerant are the standard ad hominem return of fire.
In today's politically correct world, such slurs have the power to wreck promising careers and stifle any rational examination of the issues that confront us. One such issue is religious extremism.
Now I admit to being a Christian - certainly a flawed and failed one - but nevertheless, I continue to strive toward a more virtuous life. I am also very tolerant of other recognised religions and have defended the rights afforded them under our Constitution in the Parliament, even when I have disagreed with the very premise of their faith.
However, when the same PC brigade that regularly insists upon the separation of church and state defends the extremism of the so-called 'religious' whose political agenda is contrary to the very foundation of our nation, then it's time to take a stand.
If you haven't already guessed, I am referring to fundamentalist Islam, whose adherents wish to impose sharia (or Islamic) law in Australia. These are the same groups that insist the full face veil is a requirement for women to live an Islamic life. To me, concealment of the face is akin to slavery as it voids the individual identity in favour of their submission to Islam and sharia.
You might also be interested to know that sharia also advocates stoning to death people who commit adultery or seek to renounce the Islamic faith. This is a system where women are considered as second class citizens and homosexuals can be hanged. To most Australians, such a culture would be considered a return to a more primitive and barbaric time. It’s as unwelcome as it is foreign.
Why then are there defenders of what I consider the most public symbol of fundamentalist Islam in Australia - the face covering veil? It beggars belief that these civil rights activists don't recognise that they are defending a political agenda that has the cessation of civil rights as its ultimate goal.
In our age of PC intolerance any criticism of such a repressive garment is met with hysterical criticism and indignant shrieks demanding individual freedoms.
Now, freedom is a serious matter and all governments strive to achieve a balance between anarchy and tyranny. However, where our freedoms are being used to undermine the very system that ensures those freedoms, we have to respond.
Appeasement, in any form, of the fundamentalist Islamic agenda will be a nail in the coffin of our fragile democracy. While this may seem an alarmist comment, the evidence of such actions in other nations is evident. In some countries (such as England), sharia law operates in parallel with western law in a number of areas. In Australia, already there are calls for sharia law to operate in regard to finance, divorce and property settlements. The Gillard Government is even considering legislative amendments to appease sharia finance advocates.
This is the first step in a process that will undermine our democratic ideals and the belief that our laws apply equally to all.
Already we have groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) holding their international congress in Sydney with their accompanying message calling for Muslims to rebel against democracy and the rule of western law. HT openly seeks the destruction of democracies and the establishment of an Islamic super-state. It also publicly supports terrorism against Israel. This group has been banned in many other nations due to their links to hate groups and terror, yet our own security service (ASIO) recommended against a similar ban in 2007.
In the United Kingdom, despite a similar recommendation from their national security agency, the Conservative Government has pledged to “ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir” as part of their national security platform.
I recognise there might not be concrete evidence that they are involved in terror or violence in Australia, but common sense says we shouldn't be indulging in hosting adherents to such extremist beliefs. What does it say about our nation when these anti-semitic extremists can gather in Australia but are banned from doing so in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Holland, Germany and Pakistan?
Now I know we are different to the nations I just mentioned. We have different values and a different culture. However, every nation has a duty to protect and defend its own culture. Unfortunately, too many Australians appear unwilling or uninterested in doing exactly that.
The greatest threat to freedom is the tyranny of government, yet our democratic government is often the last line in defence of our freedom. When we have groups and organisations that are using our freedoms to overturn our system of government in an attempt to impose an antiquated and brutal regime, we cannot feign tolerance.
It is time we learned from the experience of the French, the Belgians, the Dutch, the Swiss and the British. We need to stop the expansion of fundamentalist Islam in Australia lest we lose the foundation, the essence, the very culture of our great nation.
Defending our culture can start with an effective ban on the burqa and groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir. In fact, our future freedom may depend on it.
Senator Cory Bernardi is the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition and a Senator for South Australia. This article is courtesy of his personal blog which can be found at http://www.corybernardi.com.
Good on you Cory, bring on the burqa ban!
Posted by: Mick | July 16, 2010 at 05:55 PM
When are you going to introduce a bill Cory?
Posted by: Augustine | July 16, 2010 at 05:57 PM
The burqa is a symptom of a problem, not the cause. Banning the burqa doesn't solve the problem, it is merely cosmetic. Maybe it is better than nothing, however.
Posted by: David | July 16, 2010 at 06:08 PM
No. We're not monocultural or multicultural.
Both are top down ideas. Rubbish ideas as well.
We're pluralistic, the Government better get used to it.
"It is time we learned from the experience of the French, the Belgians, the Dutch, the Swiss and the British."
The British experience after 2001 was basically how NOT to Govern.
Posted by: . | July 16, 2010 at 06:15 PM
An Excellent article, Senator.
Two quotes, I think, best sum up Senator Bernardi. Martin Luther King Jr famously said “Speak without fear”; and the third US President Thomas Jefferson said “Question with boldness.” The Senator does both, and a lot of Australians, myself included, are thankful that he does.
Posted by: Andy Semple | July 16, 2010 at 06:17 PM
You have voiced your conviction now explain how a ban will work and outline what evidence you have that it will:-
a) achieve the advertised benefit.
b) not cause unintended consequences that outweigh the benefit.
If you want to take away peoples rights to free choice then I think you where the burden of proof.
And instead of taking away a freedom why work towards your goal by restoring some freedoms.
Posted by: TerjeP | July 16, 2010 at 07:01 PM
wear
Posted by: TerjeP | July 16, 2010 at 07:03 PM
If you're going to put yourself up as a champion of freedom, I'd like to know which existing restrictions on social freedoms you are planning to support the abolishment of, senator?
Posted by: cameron | July 16, 2010 at 07:14 PM
[Comment removed by Editors - Personal attack]
Posted by: Brett | July 16, 2010 at 07:34 PM
In the absence of any coherent contribution it seems you are simply a weirdo Brett. Best to troll somewhere else.
Posted by: Account Deleted | July 17, 2010 at 12:26 AM
The balance between freedom / regulation is a critical decision in regard to restricting anything TerjeP. Ultimately people will have different views on this. For me, putting a stop to organisations like HT is in the interests of the broader community. Similarly, I believe that stopping the veil being worn is also in our long term interest.
Posted by: Account Deleted | July 17, 2010 at 08:59 AM
Senator Cory Bernardi’s patriotic words are a breath of fresh air. Thank you for standing up against apartheid fashions.
And again: Thank you France!
Posted by: Ben | July 17, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Next we should ban people with dark skin because they all look the same and you can't identify them.
Posted by: Riet Rotherham | July 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Cory - I understand what you believe. However without presenting a body of evidence to support the belief you're not mounting an argument but merely stating an opinion. Perhaps you think it is enough that public policy should be merely based on whimsical opinions but I think the Australian people deserve better. I think you should show with evidence and reason how this policy will halt the negative consequences of Islamic fundamentalism. How will it prevent terrorist acts. I would contend that you don't change peoples hearts by banning their choice of clothing. If we banned public displays of the crusafix would you become less Christian? Perhaps your opinion is the right one but without evidence how do we know? Is it too much to ask that you cite some? Surely this isn't the first time things have been banned so history ought to offer you a lot of data to work with.
Posted by: TerjeP | July 17, 2010 at 11:30 AM
That's the argument progressives use, Riet.
The Burqa is a symbol of oppression. It’s a symbol of what’s wrong with Islam.
The Senator is quite right to debate the Burqa and the presence of democracy hating Islamic groups like HT who have made it quite clear that it’s their way in the end or the highway.
Posted by: Andy Semple | July 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM
We can use some help in the U.S. because our President continues to apologize to all and sundry for who we are.
Posted by: josil | July 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Andy - different people assign different meanings to symbols. Banning symbols is likely to cause all manner of cultural misunderstanding. Take for example the confederate flag which for some in the US means southern independence and for others means slavery. Banning symbols does not create understanding but fosters bitterness.
Posted by: TerjeP | July 17, 2010 at 02:34 PM
TerjeP,
You might want to refresh your memory about what I wrote:
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2010/07/politically-incorrect-radical-islam.html
That's radical islam's end game.
covering "your woman" from head to toe and only letting them have a ninja slit for their eyes is oppression.
Posted by: Andy Semple | July 17, 2010 at 02:59 PM
TerjeP,
You might want to refresh your memory about what I wrote:
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2010/07/politically-incorrect-radical-islam.html
That's radical islam's end game.
covering "your woman" from head to toe and only letting them have a ninja slit for their eyes is oppression.
Posted by: Andy Semple | July 17, 2010 at 03:00 PM
Andy - I have not forgotten what you wrote. However I'm not trying to silence your view point merely refute it. As such I don't see what political correctness has to do with this. I don't judge your views by whether they are popular or unpopular, mainstream or extreme. I seek to judge them on their merit. So far I'm not seeing any significant merit. However as I said to Cory I would be interested to see some evidence that a ban would have efficacy in preventing terrorism or protecting liberalism or whatever specific end point problem it is intended to fix.
Posted by: TerjeP | July 17, 2010 at 03:11 PM
covering "your woman" from head to toe and only letting them have a ninja slit for their eyes is oppression.
Not if it is the woman's choice.
We already have laws prohibiting a husband forcing an adult woman to do anything against her will. It would perhaps be sounder policy to advocate and inform all women, including islamic women, on resources that are available to escape an abusive relationship.
Posted by: cameron | July 17, 2010 at 04:28 PM
The Liberals have got to learn that adding more law on top of existing legislation which exists for the same purpose, is NOT good Governance.
Posted by: . | July 17, 2010 at 06:20 PM
If the burqa is a symbol of Islamic extremism (and all that is wrong with it) then banning the burqa is like putting a bandage to a festering wound without first treating and disinfecting the wound. If the burqa is a symbol of people who hold extremist/anti-western views, a ban on it may make the rest of us feel better, out of sight, out of mind. Perhaps a better solution is to ensure that those whose world view would prevent them from full participation in mainstream society are not screened out before they are given residency or citizenship in the first place.
Posted by: Eric | July 17, 2010 at 06:39 PM
Lol, "weirdo".
Seriously though, NOTHING has lead to the absolution of freedom more than government, and the kind of crap that you say in your article is exactly the rhetoric that has prevented people from realising this.
If you want to stop those scary people of a different religion from dressing in a certain way, then fine, say that. But do NOT talk about freedom, because freedom has few enemies worse than politicians like yourself.
Posted by: Brett | July 17, 2010 at 06:51 PM
Cory,
Let's put an end to the bickering.
See here:
Economic Roundup Winter 2006
Close Window
A brief history of Australia’s tax system
Sam Reinhardt and Lee Steel
http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1156/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=01_Brief_History.asp
(Chart 1)
In 1954, the total Government take was 17.5% of GDP or so. Now it is practically double. We already had enshrined social equity programmes and a bigger military offsetting subsidised tertiary education. There is no reason why it cannot be 15% considering we know more about tax incidences and burdens now than in 1901.
A 15% tax to GDP ratio can be considered social democratic. 10% is conservativism. 5% is libertarian.
There's a chance to cut Government in half or MORE with through efficiency, good tax policy and good Governance.
What are YOU going to do about it?
Posted by: . | July 17, 2010 at 08:51 PM
"all governments strive to achieve a balance between anarchy and tyranny" Cory Bernardi
Posted by: Jason | July 17, 2010 at 09:45 PM
Mark - as far as I can see none of our elected representatives actually believe in increasing freedom, at best some of them try to defend some of our remaining freedoms. Freedom to many is a mere rhetorical device to justify decreases in freedom. The example here has Cory arguing for a law that decreases freedom and insulting our intelligence by doing it in the name of freedom. It is extremely disappointing. An intellectually honest person would say "look I know this represents a reduction in freedom, but I think we need to make this sacrifice because of XYZ". The left-wingers are honest about this when they argue to reduces market freedom. The conservatives should grow a spine and be honest about it when they reduce social freedom. I'd still disagree with both camps but at least I could respect their honesty.
Cory - You seem like a decent chap. However as a politician your freedom credentials are close to zero in my book. Your party will at this election will get more support from
me than the ALP will receive, however unless you actually start advocating some freedom reforms I for one will drop you guys like a lead balloon the first chance I get.
Posted by: TerjeP | July 18, 2010 at 09:33 AM
This policy of "defending our freedom by sacrificing it" is a shiver looking for a spine to crawl up.
Posted by: . | July 18, 2010 at 09:37 AM
Cam,
The poor women are brained washed.
It's a symbol of conformity. Radical Islam is the spread of their politics and when you stop and break it down, this is a form of passive invasion. The radicals want a worldwide Caliphate Islamic state, with Sharia Law as its centre piece.
The penny finally dropped in Europe and the penny is about to drop here. Respect is a two way street, but the radicals don’t respect our God and they most definitely don’t respect our way of life.
Posted by: Andy Semple | July 18, 2010 at 01:20 PM
FYI
Kill the ground zero mosque
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjGJPPRD3u0
Posted by: Andy Semple | July 18, 2010 at 01:26 PM
I don't know. Some do. I don't know if they all do or they'd rather opress their own and stick to their knitting. The problem was al Qaida got in with the Taliban who presumably were sticking to their knitting, whereas al Qaida see themselves as a vanguard for an imaginary Caliphate.
What's important to realise is that al Qaida are beating America.
Look at the economic decline since 9/11. Has bin laden been captured?
The time for austerity, good Governance and effective military leadership is at hand.
We can't let ourselves or our allies lose.
Posted by: . | July 18, 2010 at 01:39 PM
How is restricting the rights of people to wear certain attire and speak certain phrases indicative of freedom?
Posted by: Dan Nolan | July 18, 2010 at 07:41 PM
This policy of "defending our freedom by sacrificing it" is a shiver looking for a spine to crawl up.
Indeed, it's pure doublespeak.
If you want to take away the freedom of women who choose to wear burkhas to "preserve our culture" or whatever, call it what it is: taking away the freedom of women to wear burkhas because the burkha is an Islamic symbol of female oppression. Don't call it freedom.
Posted by: Fermista | July 18, 2010 at 07:49 PM
I support the freedom of individuals to hold radical islamic views, including, but not limited to, a belief in violently overthrowing Western democracy to install a global islamic caliphate.
Posted by: cameron | July 18, 2010 at 08:00 PM
Hear hear.
Posted by: Dan Nolan | July 18, 2010 at 08:57 PM
THE BURKHA AND THE FLOURIDE ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO DILUTE OUR PRECIOUS BODILY CULTURE!
Posted by: Dan Nolan | July 18, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Media reports today say the British government won't ban the Burka. Nor for that matter does the Australian government or the Australian opposition support such a ban.
Posted by: TerjeP | July 19, 2010 at 01:55 PM
"all governments strive to achieve a balance between anarchy and tyranny" Cory Bernardi
I guess articles like yours get people talking at least - if that's your motivation, Cory.
The idea that we would restrict the way female Australian citizens dress in order to defend their freedom, makes me want to throw my guts up. It is purely sick, twisted and tyrannical double speak in the same realm as "Arbeit Macht Frei". Cory is good at defending tyranny and stirring up the haters, but the good people of the world won't stand by and watch without acting. This hateful attitude is the worst enemy to the political right.
Posted by: Jason | July 20, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Hi Cory ,
I want to say that I agree with your views and I would like to see our polititions impliment a true defence of our culture. Islamics have no right
to come to Australia and demand that their cultural values should replace ours, if they want that they do not deserve to be here.
I have served in Australia's armed forces which exist to defend the Australian way of life and democracy.
The price of freedom and liberty is eternal vigilance
so we should never forget that.
David G
Posted by: David George | July 22, 2010 at 11:39 PM