Banning the Burqa now has a slogan and logo

[Saint Jade IV]

A shop owner in Sydney has made public his opinion regarding the burqa in a most provocative way by painting a mural on the outside wall of his shop. The local council has admitted it has no grounds to ask the gentleman to remove his "artwork", but is seeking avenues to try and make him remove it.

While I don't agree with the sentiment expressed in the mural, or with the method used to express his opinion, I do believe he has a right to express it. Many others believe that the harmony of the community is more important than his right to express it, and that he is causing offence and hurt to the Muslim minority through his actions.

Security guards have recently been posted to prevent vandalism to the mural. I do believe that if he has opened the doors to debate through placing a mural in a place easily viewable by the public, that people should have a right to answer his opinion with their own thoughts. However, it is his property.

Should he be forced to remove the mural to appease the community at large, who, Muslim or not, have expressed distaste for it? Or does his right to free expression of his opinion trump the community harmony?

NB: As this is in AUSTRALIA please remember that AUSTRALIANS do not have a guaranteed right to free speech. It is implied in our Constitution but not explicitly stated. So please remember that the US Constitution, Supreme Court etc are completely irrelevant.

[Wamitoria]

What is the point of banning the Burqa? I honestly don't see one.

[Brogavia]

That's not an accurate portrayal of Muslim women. It lacks horns and fangs.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

While I don't agree with the sentiment expressed in the mural, or with the method used to express his opinion, I do believe he has a right to express it. Many others believe that the harmony of the community is more important than his right to express it, and that he is causing offence and hurt to the Muslim minority through his actions.

Fuck 'em. It's his property, he can say what he wants.

[SaintB]

What is the point of banning the Burqa? I honestly don't see one.

Christians wanting to piss of Muslims.

[Farnhamia]

What is the point of banning the Burqa? I honestly don't see one.

It's a gateway to enacting sharia law. *nod*

@Saint Jade: The US Supreme Court is very relevant. Have seen the robes they wear? They practically are burqas.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

What is the point of banning the Burqa? I honestly don't see one.

Here's an actually valid argument:

It obscures the majority of their face. Think about it: If you walked around in public with a ski mask on (and it wasn't cold) you'd get asked questions pretty quick. While a lot of this is certainly motivated by xenophobia, I'd say there is at least a somewhat legitimate concern of people wearing everyday dress that makes them totally unidentifiable were they to commit a crime.

AWW SHIT I DONE MADE A REAL ARGUMENT

[Scarsaw]

That's not an accurate portrayal of Muslim women. It lacks horns and fangs.

QFT; how are we going to know what they look like and shun them appropriately if we don't draw them right!

[Scarsaw]

EDIT: double post.

[Lackadaisical2]

A shop owner in Sydney has made public his opinion regarding the burqa in a most provocative way by painting a mural on the outside wall of his shop. The local council has admitted it has no grounds to ask the gentleman to remove his "artwork", but is seeking avenues to try and make him remove it.

While I don't agree with the sentiment expressed in the mural, or with the method used to express his opinion, I do believe he has a right to express it. Many others believe that the harmony of the community is more important than his right to express it, and that he is causing offence and hurt to the Muslim minority through his actions.

You dislike murals?

Security guards have recently been posted to prevent vandalism to the mural. I do believe that if he has opened the doors to debate through placing a mural in a place easily viewable by the public, that people should have a right to answer his opinion with their own thoughts. However, it is his property.

They do, just, as you said, not on his property... *shudders to think that we'd ever force everyone to air both sides of a story*

Should he be forced to remove the mural to appease the community at large, who, Muslim or not, have expressed distaste for it? Or does his right to free expression of his opinion trump the community harmony?

Hell no. Thats exactly the kind of speech a government needs to be forced to protect.

[Saint Jade IV]

You dislike murals?

I dislike this one. I find it in poor taste. And the artwork and technique is something I would expect out of a 5 year old.

Hell no. Thats exactly the kind of speech a government needs to be forced to protect.

I agree completely.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

It's political speech. They better fucking protect it.

[Farnhamia]

It's political speech. They better fucking protect it.

According to Saint Jade, that's not explicitly guaranteed in the Australian Constitution, so ...

[Lackadaisical2]

You dislike murals?

I dislike this one. I find it in poor taste. And the artwork and technique is something I would expect out of a 5 year old.

It kind of made me chuckle actually. Reminds me of the Ghost Busters symbol.

[North Suran]

Hell no. Thats exactly the kind of speech a government needs to be forced to protect.

There's a difference between freedom of speech and provocation.

It's the same reason why you're banned from having a Nazi flag as your nation flag but you are allowed to post swastikas on the actual forums. When you're posting on the forums, people can argue with you. You can't argue with a massive mural. It would be like me shoving a poster of a burning Star of David with the words, "SAY NO TO JEWS" underneath it. It's crude, its offensive and it is not the proper venue for political debate.

[Hamilay]

Should he be forced to remove the mural to appease the community at large, who, Muslim or not, have expressed distaste for it? Or does his right to free expression of his opinion trump the community harmony?

No and yes. Just like the right to wearing of burqas trumps 'community harmony'.

What is the point of banning the Burqa? I honestly don't see one.

Here's an actually valid argument:

It obscures the majority of their face. Think about it: If you walked around in public with a ski mask on (and it wasn't cold) you'd get asked questions pretty quick. While a lot of this is certainly motivated by xenophobia, I'd say there is at least a somewhat legitimate concern of people wearing everyday dress that makes them totally unidentifiable were they to commit a crime.

AWW SHIT I DONE MADE A REAL ARGUMENT

This isn't a valid argument. If you were forced to identify yourself to everybody in public there would be no reason not to make wearing name tags mandatory.

[Nobel Hobos]

1. That's not a mural. It's too crappy to be protected as "artwork".
2. It is political speech, and as such should be permitted by council and higher levels of government.
3. Political speech invites political debate. Defacing it is MORE not LESS legitimate than other grafitti being put on private property without the owner's consent.
4. The owner will eventually decide that his "contribution" to political debate isn't worth the cost of employing security guards.
5. If I was walking past as he stepped outside, he'd get an earful of my free speech!

[Lackadaisical2]

Hell no. Thats exactly the kind of speech a government needs to be forced to protect.

There's a difference between freedom of speech and provocation.

It's the same reason why you're banned from having a Nazi flag as your nation flag but you are allowed to post swastikas on the actual forums. When you're posting on the forums, people can argue with you. You can't argue with a massive mural.

I never cared for the ban against having Nazi flags, so I find the argument completely unmoving, as I always have. Hold a rally or something if you want yourself to be heard, paint your own mural.

It would be like me shoving a poster of a burning Star of David with the words, "SAY NO TO JEWS" underneath it. It's crude, its offensive and it is not the proper venue for political debate.

Having a shitty analogy day? They're rejecting a piece of clothing, not the people.

Crude and offensive it may be, but I don't see a problem with allowing it.

[Saint Jade IV]

Hell no. Thats exactly the kind of speech a government needs to be forced to protect.

There's a difference between freedom of speech and provocation.

It's the same reason why you're banned from having a Nazi flag as your nation flag but you are allowed to post swastikas on the actual forums. When you're posting on the forums, people can argue with you. You can't argue with a massive mural. It would be like me shoving a poster of a burning Star of David with the words, "SAY NO TO JEWS" underneath it. It's crude, its offensive and it is not the proper venue for political debate.

Why are some venues off limits for political debate? I mean, in NSG obviously the owner has certain rules that he imposes on the people who debate here. The owner of this property has decided to voice his opinion on the burqa debate, certainly in a provocative manner, and in a way which doesn't leave much room for the voicing of other opinions, but it is his property.

[Innsmothe]

Obvious christian troll.

[Saint Jade IV]

1. That's not a mural. It's too crappy to be protected as "artwork".
2. It is political speech, and as such should be permitted by council and higher levels of government.
3. Political speech invites political debate. Defacing it is MORE not LESS legitimate than other grafitti being put on private property without the owner's consent.
4. The owner will eventually decide that his "contribution" to political debate isn't worth the cost of employing security guards.
5. If I was walking past as he stepped outside, he'd get an earful of my free speech!

This is pretty much my opinion on the subject. Though I question the validity of terming it political speech. That almost gives it some legitimacy .

[Blouman Empire]

Obvious christian troll.

I always thought it was an obvious secular troll, after all France "the country that prides itself on being secular" has banned it.

[Vortiaganica]

At first I thought it was just Sydney insanity streak (Can't they just move to New Zealand already?) but this guy seems to have an interesting P.O.V. (not very coherent, but still interesting).

From what I can make of the article, this isn't supposed to be about the Burqa itself...but I'm probably wrong. I'm a Melbournite, so I don't think like *they* do.

[Innsmothe]

Obvious christian troll.

I always thought it was an obvious secular troll, after all France "the country that prides itself on being secular" has banned it.

Australia is very christian. :/

[Equimanthon]

It would be like me shoving a poster of a burning Star of David with the words, "SAY NO TO JEWS" underneath it.

You'd be exactly right if you weren't talking crap. I could see your point if it had a burning crescent moon with "SAY NO TO MUSLIMS" under it, but is it is, it doesn't. It's still provocative, but it's not that bad.