Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

Status
Not open for further replies.
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
Really hard to believe that Pauline Hanson turned up to the senate today wearing a burqa.

Well it happened apparently. Poor dear obviously wasn't feeling relevant again.

Thought she had seen the light and converted… Maybe next time?!

Duel Citizenship 1st Step..

Conservatives sticking together to divert attention from the mayhem in the House of Reps.
 
@ said:
she is covering the wrong part - she should be taping up her stupid mouth

It's not very often that we agree, but she is an embarrassment to Australia.
 
@ said:
@ said:
she is covering the wrong part - she should be taping up her stupid mouth

It's not very often that we agree, but she is an embarrassment to Australia.

I don't agree with her politics but regardless she is so hopeless as an articulator and hasn't improved over the decades, same boat as Arthur (two wongs don't make a white) Calwell. Bob Kattar is a much better folk hero representative for the what-about-me-it-isn't fair sideshow.
 
@ said:
You dont agree with Pauline Byron?
I find that difficult to believe 😆

I had a friend quite older than myself, since deceased, and he was completely mad over her. Joined up, worked his butt off. Their mindset is 1950s and Blue Hills.

It is a shame that Sarah was moved from her portfolio - like Robbie being put into reserves ha ha.
 
If we are going to waste money on a plebiscite on whether we can stop two people getting married ot not( not that it's anyone's business except the two people concerned) can we have one on the Burka as well, seeing as our opinion is now valuable to our jelly legged Pollies. (Including the ones who are there illegally elected).

Just a question on the burka . No one has ever given a reasonable reason that I can't go into a bank with a motor bike helmet covering my identity. But I can whack a Burka on and do what ever I like. Double standards ????

**Question 2**

One other question about the ever expanding numbers of sheepish Kiwis that have infiltrated our parliament over the years.

The current PM has said that dear old Barnaby can re nominate in any by election ( if the High court upholds the Constitution, and rules it's illegal to be in the parliament if he is a dual citizen.
If that is established, (that he's there illegally), wouldn't that mean that He, (and all the others in the same boat), would have been illegally elected at every election that they have contested, and would also have been receiving a bundle of taxpayers money illegally, over their total time in the parliament.including their ridiculously bloated Parliamentary Pension entitlements.
As the law stands now , they are illegally elected, and should have to pay back ALL money received illegally.

As far as I can see that's black and white ,
We're constantly told that ignorance of any law, is not a defence.
But it will be interesting to see how this mob slither out of this one
Actually they should all be sacked anyway, even if it is simply for being so dumb as to not know if they were citizens of another Country. Even those who are using the ever popular Shane Warne excuse " it was Mums fault"
 
Am I the only one who sees no logic in complaining about the rights people have in Muslim counties (or lack thereof), places where you can get get stoned to death for simply being an atheist, and being thankful that we live in a free country. Yet we want to impose some of the things we complain about in other countries by telling people what they can and can't wear? Our country isn't so free if you can be arrested by your choice of clothing.
 
Seen some of the things kids a wearing these days and the burqa is the least of our problems. Oops showing my age.

Silly thing for Pauline to do. As moronic as her efforts were I do understand the security risk aspect of her point. I was screaming at the TV for her to put it back on. Maybe that was why the burqa was introduced. Shallow I know but we are talking about Pauline.

Also understand that it's not a religious requirement to wear the burqa more a cultural one for certain Muslim nationalities.
 
Sixty years ago I would have been in favour of a burqa ban. I was living in semi-rural where people still rode horses and horses would get frightened by such a figure and rear up upending the rider. I would expect that now-a-days little children not used to them could also get frightened by the black coloured ones.

It is all a sham. Saudi diplomats world wide are famous for visiting flesh spots but enforce draconian rules against women exposing at home.

As a rationalist I am in favour of anyone who desires wearing them so that they lose their religious significance and also provide anonymity for anyone who so desires. I could imagine them becoming an exotic item in the right atmosphere. I have never witnessed a burqaed person smoking so that is a big plus.
 
My question remains. Why is there one law for one person and another law for others
One can remain unidentified , but the other can't.
All in the name of a fantasy figure in the sky.
or is it that there are votes in letting Muslims supposed customs over ride The rules that others have to abide by?
 
Presumably the cops can demand ID when necessary so I don't think the law is different is it??? If I was a crim on the run I would happily pose as a female burqa wearer to get around - though I would scare the horses, male pervers and any lesbian cops big time.
 
This is all a distraction from the fact we have a Government in crisis with the Crocodile of Dunedin sitting in the lower house and three of his cohorts from the Dual Nationals in trouble in the Upper House. Where is the GG when you need him? :unamused:
 
@ said:
Presumably the cops can demand ID when necessary so I don't think the law is different is it??? If I was a crim on the run I would happily pose as a female burqa wearer to get around - though I would scare the horses, male pervers and any lesbian cops big time.

It is different in that I cannot go into a bank with a helmet on.
Someone who has a Burka on only has to identify herself/ himself If she is told to do so by police.
No Police around….no compulsion to identify herself /himself
Different rules for some don't apply to others.
 
@ said:
@ said:
Presumably the cops can demand ID when necessary so I don't think the law is different is it??? If I was a crim on the run I would happily pose as a female burqa wearer to get around - though I would scare the horses, male pervers and any lesbian cops big time.

It is different in that I cannot go into a bank with a helmet on.
Someone who has a Burka on only has to identify herself/ himself If she is told to do so by police.
No Police around….no compulsion to identify herself /himself
Different rules for some don't apply to others.

Presumably the banks are being diplomatic as there have been no female bank robbers yet in Bonnie and Clyde style but there have been bikie bank robbers guaranteed. It may not be a government law about helmets and burqas in banks but a bank "law" - if religions can discriminate on religious grounds then why can't banks as well.
 
Religious grounds is a cop out on any subject, and it's an easy one to do almost anything .
Even Muslims can't agree that the Burqa has any religious significence at all. It's mostly the over zealous that seem to get all funny about it.
I don't really mind what any religion does or says as long as they don't try and override laws and customs of the country that they move to, and be happy to live peacefully alongside those who disagree with them( which most of them do happily)
I couldn't care less if they sat on the fence and prayed to the moon, if that's what they want to do. As long as they didn't mind if I did a bit of Devil worshipping in my back yard in my spare time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Back
Top