Did Senator Pauline Hansen Break A Religious Code By Wearing a Berqa Into the Senate?

When Senator, Pauline Hansen, arrived to take her seat in the Australian Federal Senate today she caused an outrage from the leader of the House. She was wearing a berqa, a Muslim complete body cover, which many think is a religious garb. The rhetoric that headed her way from Senator Brandis was one of sheer disgust that she would offend a religious group in this way. The question is whether the covering is actually a religious garment?My observations and research into the Islamic faith proves that it is not. In the times when the Islamic religion was established in Babylon, some 4,000 years ago, there is no sign of any head covering for women in the images of that city or others built by the Amor, the inhabitants.They became the Romans when they established the city of Roma (reverse Amor) and the new religion set up by Constantine was the Catholic Church in 325 AD. Nowhere from the Assyrian Empire, the Egyptian or the Roman Empires shows anything like this garment being worn. By the time of the Romans women were wearing full length dresses but no head-gear.The Catholic Vatican appointed Augustine to start the Muslim Branch of Islam, based on its own formula, to add credibility to the things it claims, such as the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. He used a man named Mohammed whom he trained as a prophet and then possibly wrote the Koran. These things are verified in the Vatican archives and were released to the public by a Jesuit priest who worked with them.The first time I became aware of this garment is in relation to the Taliban and the Sharia law. It apparently follows the tradition from the 10th Century that women customarily veiled their faces as a sign of their upper-class status. At that time women were not allowed to partake in public-activities which heralds the start of the persecution of women.In 1899 a book by Qasim Amin noted that wearing a veil was a customary thing and not related to Islam. He lobbied for a new copy of the Qu’ran which caused considerable debate. In 1910 a woman, Malak Hifni Nassef, published the Womenests which argued against his claim, with some vigour.In the 1920′s King Amanullah stated that religion does not require a woman to cover their hands, feet, or faces. He reiterated that this was a tribal custom that impeded the ‘free will of the individual’. This is the best response to the veil so far. Also in the 20′s Ataturk from Turkey spoke out against the veil calling it demeaning, but he did not ban it.The Iranian king, Reza Pahlavi, banned the chador (means shadow) claiming the garment should be burned and anyone wearing it were not allowed on public transport and could have it cut up with scissors. He called it a symbol of injustice and shame.After the six days’ war in Egypt in 1967 women started wearing the veil as a symbol of superiority and domination. It appears that this is still the case in Australia, where it has become offensive to many in this free democracy.When Iran returned to a Republic after the revolution of 1979 women wore the chador as a symbol of defiance against the deposed king and its western support. Here again is purpose unrelated to religious values but more to a status symbol. The women were targeted who appeared in public without the veil. That means it is now a weapon of discrimination.In 1996 to 2001 the Taliban in Pakistan forced women to wear the garment in public. Their law allowed for beatings and worse if a woman defied the order. In 2004 the French government banned the burqa, and the hijabs in public schools. This brought about more rebellious reaction from Muslim women who seemed to delight in upsetting everyone around them. The president stated that “women who are prisoners behind a screen are cut off from society and deprived of identity.”In 2009 Belgium followed suit and banned the wearing of such garments in schools. In 2010 the French banned the wearing of berqas from public services and transport. Belgium then also banned the covering for public safety reasons.Pauline Hansen has called for the Australian government to follow suit as it is a mockery of women in general. With their faces covered they cannot be identified and the shield is a hindrance to law enforcement and the subject of abuse from objectors and who knows who is parading around under cover?In my opinion there is no place for berqas or any head covering in our society. The quicker they are banned for what they are the better. They have nothing to do with religion but more to do with sticking it up our noses and its time they were taken to task. Good on Pauline for raising the matter so dramatically that the world has taken notice of her.

Tags:

Comments are closed.