Government & Politics Institutions International Leaders & Institutions Legislation News

Anti-Muslim Australian senator wears burqa in Parliament

In this combination of photos Sen. Pauline Hanson takes off a burqa she wore into the Senate chamber at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on Aug. 17, 2017. Hanson, leader of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigration One Nation minor party, sat wearing the black head-to-ankle garment for more than 10 minutes before taking it off as she rose to explain that she wanted such outfits banned on national security grounds. (Lukas Coch/AAP Image via AP)

In this combination of photos Sen. Pauline Hanson takes off a burqa she wore into the Senate chamber at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on Aug. 17, 2017. Hanson, leader of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigration One Nation minor party, sat wearing the black head-to-ankle garment for more than 10 minutes before taking it off as she rose to explain that she wanted such outfits banned on national security grounds. (Lukas Coch/AAP Image via AP)

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — An Australian senator provoked an angry backlash from lawmakers by wearing a burqa in Parliament on Thursday (Aug. 17) as part of her campaign for a national ban on Islamic face covers.

Pauline Hanson, leader of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigration One Nation minor party, sat wearing the black head-to-ankle garment for more than 10 minutes before taking it off as she rose to explain that she wanted such outfits banned on national security grounds.

“There has been a large majority of Australians (who) wish to see the banning of the burka,” said Hanson, an outspoken fan of President Trump, as senators objected.

Attorney General George Brandis drew applause when he said his government would not ban the burqa and chastised Hanson for what he described as a “stunt” that offended Australia’s Muslim minority.

Sen. Pauline Hanson, bottom left, wears a burqa during question time in the Senate chamber at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on Aug. 17, 2017. (Lukas Coch/AAP Image via AP)

“To ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do and I would ask you to reflect on what you have done,” Brandis said.

Opposition Senate leader Penny Wong told Hanson: “It is one thing to wear religious dress as a sincere act of faith; it is another to wear it as a stunt here in the Senate.”

Sam Dastyari, an opposition senator and an Iranian-born Muslim, said: “We have seen the stunt of all stunts in this chamber by Sen. Hanson.

“The close to 500,000 Muslim Australians do not deserve to be targeted, do not deserve to be marginalized, do not deserve to be ridiculed, do not deserve to have their faith made some political point by the desperate leader of a desperate political party,” Dastyari said.

Senate President Stephen Parry said Hanson’s identity had been confirmed before she entered the chamber. He also said he would not dictate the standards of dress for the chamber.

About the author

Rod McGuirk

31 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Not just anti-Muslim but anti-indigenous and anti-immigration. To give her credit, she founded her own political party that at one point she was kicked out of. And also wrote a book on her views that apparently she was unable to remember the contents of when interviewed on air.

  • If any white person expresses misogynistic and ‘homophobic’ opinions, they tend to be labelled as a Nazi bigot (or similar), while Islam, according to the Quran and the hadiths, is both misogynistic and extremely ‘homophobic.’ Yet it is forbidden in Western society to criticise this oppressive ideology that forbids free critical thought and speech, as well as those who practice it. Clearly, double standards by the modern Left and the ruling political elites of the West (including mainstream so-called ‘conservatives’), who insist on placing Muslims at the top of their list of most preciously protected species.

  • Actually we call white bigots Nazis and Muslim ones Islamicists.

    Given your posting history, you appear lost. This isn’t Infowars, Daily Stormer or Reddit. 🙂

  • There is a need for Australian Muslims to develop an intelligentsia that can debate publicly, and debate multiple points of view. All we get to hear is one Sam Dastyari. What are the thoughts of the others?

    It’s all very well to say that Sen Hanson wore the burqa as a political statement. But what about the Muslim women? Aren’t they making a public statement by wearing a burqa? After all, Muslim women are interested in nail polish, shoes, jewelry and pop culture, just like anybody else. Why would Muslim women wear a burqa unless they intend to make a public statement?

    Let us hear what public statement Australian Muslim women want to make. A protest that Islam is under siege? A protest that feminism is making women too tough for men to marry? A protest that there is excessive individualism?

  • Funny how the Alinskite is comparing Infowars and Reddit to a white surpremisict website. Yet Infowars has black reporters and guests LOL

    Jones has interviewed and worked with Louis Farrakan too. LOL

  • “…to mock its religious garments…”

    Well, the burqa is a pretty vile piece of misogyny; it deserves all the mocking it gets.

  • No accounting for taste.

    On this site we have a Neo-Nazi and a black conservative evangelical agreeing on the same issues.

  • I guess that’s my cue to accuse Spuddie of sleeping with Antifa, since he openly defends them (which would necessarily include what they did at Berkeley and DC as well as Charlottesville).

    But it would be better if we took our recriminations elsewhere, to a more fitting playground. May I suggest the new Al Sharpton thread?

  • Yak, yak, yak! Such a misuse of a brain, because any reading of the Muslim ‘Holy Book’, ie. Quran, and Islamic hadiths would reveal that there is absolutely no toleration of homosexuality and apostasy, demanding that they be punishable by death.

    If Islam had been created by white European or North Americans, mugs like you would be claiming it was a new form of neo-Nazism, but because it emanates from darker people of more primitive lands, hypocrites like you defend it. That is the measure of your innate self-loathing, anti-white racism.

  • A couple of things:
    1. I don’t take any argument seriously that starts with “__ religion is evil”. All it does is create a sounding board for bigots.

    2. Unless you are an actual adherent of the religion you discuss, all you are doing is quote mining their scriptures dishonestly for effect. You don’t really know how it’s practiced. You would likely just be repeating crap from hate sites

    3. People who come here, play nice and leave their sectarian hatred at the door get a lot of slack cut to them.

    4. There is no excuse for attacking civil liberties starting with “but they are __ religion”

    5. “there is absolutely no toleration of homosexuality and demands that it be punishable by death”

    So they are right at home with Christians like Scott Lively and Tony Perkins. Extremists of a feather flock together.

    6. I live in a neighborhood with a sizable population of Saudi, Bosnian and Pakistani Muslims. (North Jersey) Whatever you have to say about Muslim communities in the US is probably a load of BS that is easily refuted by personal experience to the contrary.

    This should cover all my conceivable responses to you. Happy trails.

  • 1. I never said anything that even resembles “___ religion of evil.” You’re merely using that as a straw man argument;

    2. I’ve read the Quran and many of the Islamic hadiths. Have you? Likely not for fear of what you will find;

    3. I bet you don’t play that game when it comes to Christians defending their religion;

    4. Completely irrelevant to the matter in hand;

    5. Unlike the Quran, which prescribes death for homosexuality, the Christian Bible makes no such demand;

    6. I recently used to work for a company here in England that employs a large number of Muslims (mostly Pakistani), including a couple of imams, and used to play the sympathetic ‘fellow-traveller’ when talking to them about a variety of matters, including Sharia law and homosexuality, and you would find what they used to say to be inconvenient with regard to your defence of Islam. The fact is that Muslims here in the UK, as in many European countries, account for a higher percentage of the population than they do in the US. It’s a well known phenomena that as their population grows within a country, the more aggressive they become with their expectations and demands, all in line with the supremacist nature of their ideology, and governments duly concede.

    As I said before, I’ve read the Quran, but it’s clear you haven’t, but prefer to believe the taqiyya (the Muslim strategy of deception) they employ for the ears of ‘kafir’ (their derogatory word for ‘infidels’) such as you who foolishly falls into the trap of becoming a ‘useful idiot’ of their true ideology.

  • When you paint Islam with such a wide brush, you betray how little that you understand. There is no great monolithic Islam, as there isn’t with most of the major faiths. It is made up of different sects and schools of jurisprudence that are not unanimous on the approach to homosexuality. As to the collections of Mohammed’s teachings, the hadiths, the oldest, those closest to Mohammed, don’t have those teachings about homosexuality. Only the collections made a few centuries after Mohammed have them. That to me betrays a later prejudice, especially of the so-called editor of the teachings.

    Yes, some Muslim schools of thought and some Muslim majority nations condemn homosexuality and those accused of its practice are killed. But in the majority of Muslim majority nations that is not the case. In some it is illegal, but those laws are not enforced, in others it is not illegal and in a few, there are laws protecting the LGBT community. A handful are now looking towards same sex marriage.

  • RNS is not precisely a “Christian publication(s),” It is a news service with contributors from a wide variety of faith backgrounds, or no faith at all.

  • Read your Bible and you will see it’s views on homosexuality and the woman’s tertiary role in the hierarchy. Not so different except Christianity and Judaism have lost their power to stone or burn at the stake and most societies have granted women full rights.

  • The difference between the two is that The Bible is open to interpretation, but Muslims are obliged to take the diktats of the Quran literally, whilst also following the example of Mohammed, who was not only an imperious warmonger, mass-murderer and slave-trader, but also a child-molester.

  • How very typical. When Antifa types such as Spuddie have no argument against well-informed arguments from white people, they just shout ‘Nazi’, which merely weakens the true meaning of the word until, just as with the word ‘racist,’ it effectively transforms into a substitute for ‘no valid argument available’.

  • There is nothing well informed about your nonsense. I just don’t want you to get the impression you are worth taking seriously.

    You are not refuting the label of racist and Nazi in any way. Just showing annoyance at being called one. It’s an important thing to bring up when one is actually saying racist things or showing admiration of actual Nazis and their beliefs.

    But even our resident neo nazi doesn’t make your argument. He has enough honesty and integrity to admit he is one and takes pride in that. Stop being so spineless and dishonest and just take pride in what you are.

  • Leviticus is part of the Old Testament, before Christ died in order to have man resolved of their sins. The scriptures of the Christian New Testament are an agreement between God and church, and as the church is not a state, it does not therefore indulge in state activity such as capital punishment. Christians are thereby not required to carry out the requirements stated in Leviticus 20:13.

  • That’s fine if Christianity does not wish to enforce this law. I think everyone can agree that’s a good thing. I just wanted to point out that the Bible does in fact prescribe a punishment, whether that should be adhered to is a different question.

ADVERTISEMENTs