The burqa mural: should it be painted...

The burqa mural: should it be painted over?

Posted in the Australia Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“We don't have to take it”

Since: Jun 08

WhereTFamI?

#1 Sep 22, 2010
The burqa mural: should it be painted over?

23-09-10

This mural has appeared in the trendy Sydney suburb of Newtown.

PHOTO: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/should-th...

It was painted by the owner of the property, shop owner Sergio Redegalli who also, apparently, has a ban-the-burqa bumper sticker.

Locals have complained and council officials have visited the owner to talk to him about removing but have said in a statement that legally their hands are tied. There’s a pretty simple freedom of speech issue at play here: should it be painted over?

Redegalli told the local newspaper, The Inner West Courier:“This mural has come from frustration that political correctness has gone so far you can’t say anything about Muslims without getting in trouble,” he said.

“This is a stance on rights for ourselves, we can say something peacefully without having violence.”

He finished the mural this week and it has been vandalised twice while in progress.

Clearly, Redegalli knows what he’s getting himself into. In a box beside the mural are printed copies of an article from the New York Times by an Egyptian feminist who supports banning the burqa.

Also taped to the wall is an A4 page containing the Australian Human Rights Commission’s definition of racial hatred.

In a statement to The Punch, the local authority, Marrickville Council, said that while it had no legal right under graffiti laws to remove the mural, it was “continuing to pursue other means of having the image/symbol removed.”

The local mayor, Sam Iskandar, said:“I strongly condemn this action which goes against the values which the Marrickville community has believed in and practiced for generations. I believe this is an isolated incident which is not supported by the broader Marrickville community.”
Elias

Clayton, Australia

#2 Sep 22, 2010
The mural is clearly designed to be infalammatory and probably breaches the federal anti-vilification laws. So yes should be covered up (like a burqa).
scooterman

Melbourne, Australia

#3 Sep 22, 2010
Gottaliv wrote:
The burqa mural: should it be painted over?
23-09-10
This mural has appeared in the trendy Sydney suburb of Newtown.
PHOTO: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/should-th...
It was painted by the owner of the property, shop owner Sergio Redegalli who also, apparently, has a ban-the-burqa bumper sticker.
Locals have complained and council officials have visited the owner to talk to him about removing but have said in a statement that legally their hands are tied. There’s a pretty simple freedom of speech issue at play here: should it be painted over?
Redegalli told the local newspaper, The Inner West Courier:“This mural has come from frustration that political correctness has gone so far you can’t say anything about Muslims without getting in trouble,” he said.
“This is a stance on rights for ourselves, we can say something peacefully without having violence.”
He finished the mural this week and it has been vandalised twice while in progress.
Clearly, Redegalli knows what he’s getting himself into. In a box beside the mural are printed copies of an article from the New York Times by an Egyptian feminist who supports banning the burqa.
Also taped to the wall is an A4 page containing the Australian Human Rights Commission’s definition of racial hatred.
In a statement to The Punch, the local authority, Marrickville Council, said that while it had no legal right under graffiti laws to remove the mural, it was “continuing to pursue other means of having the image/symbol removed.”
The local mayor, Sam Iskandar, said:“I strongly condemn this action which goes against the values which the Marrickville community has believed in and practiced for generations. I believe this is an isolated incident which is not supported by the broader Marrickville community.”
I see Godwin's law asserted itself very, very early in the comments below the article (the second comment in fact).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Pollywaffle

Sydney, Australia

#4 Sep 22, 2010
This man has a lot of guts, I hope he sticks it out and gets heaps of support from other Aussies.
They are forever whinging and whining and running to council to do something about it but it's a freedom of speech issue. Why don't they go and live in a Muslim country and leave us alone. They will probably cut his head off or put a bomb in his letterbox.

“We don't have to take it”

Since: Jun 08

WhereTFamI?

#5 Sep 23, 2010
Elias wrote:
The mural is clearly designed to be infalammatory and probably breaches the federal anti-vilification laws. So yes should be covered up (like a burqa).
Why do you decipher it as being inflammatory? Calling for the beheading for somebody is "inflammatory". Calling for the "death to the USA - UK - Australia - is "inflammatory". But nothing is done about that eh.

He's not "breaching" any laws otherwise it would have been removed right away for sure. It's his wall, it's his "freedom of speech/opinion", but I'll guarantee somehow, someway, something will be devised to make him remove it. If a 'law' doesn't already exist, then council will invent one.

Yep, we're getting more and more like the PC stuffed-up UK with all it's restrictive regulations every day.

“We don't have to take it”

Since: Jun 08

WhereTFamI?

#6 Sep 23, 2010
scooterman wrote:
<quoted text> I see Godwin's law asserted itself very, very early in the comments below the article (the second comment in fact). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
We need a 'Ned Kelly Law' in play for Australia. No matter what the subject, our criminal ancestors will always be bought into the equation by some brain dead moron.
scooterman

Melbourne, Australia

#7 Sep 23, 2010
Gottaliv wrote:
<quoted text>
We need a 'Ned Kelly Law' in play for Australia. No matter what the subject, our criminal ancestors will always be bought into the equation by some brain dead moron.
And at least the convicts weren't made to wear burqas.

Since: Feb 10

Castle Hill, Australia

#8 Sep 23, 2010
Elias wrote:
The mural is clearly designed to be infalammatory and probably breaches the federal anti-vilification laws. So yes should be covered up (like a burqa).
In what way does it breach the anti-vilification laws? And if that's the case, why doesn't the local council have the power to order it removed?
farthole

Chicago, IL

#9 Sep 23, 2010
scooterman wrote:
<quoted text>
And at least the convicts weren't made to wear burqas.
No, they diddnt wear burqas. The sacks that convicts wore diddnt have eye holes.
Elias

Clayton, Australia

#10 Sep 23, 2010
Gottaliv wrote:
<quoted text>
He's not "breaching" any laws otherwise it would have been removed right away for sure.
My understanding is the council and the local mayor Sam Iskander have asked him to remove it for legal reasons.
In addition there is a danger his shop or family may be targeted by the members of the muslim community. I would hate to see him get hurt.
Elias

Clayton, Australia

#11 Sep 23, 2010
Tiger7 wrote:
<quoted text>
In what way does it breach the anti-vilification laws? And if that's the case, why doesn't the local council have the power to order it removed?
Clearly vilifies muslim women
what a joke

Prahran, Australia

#12 Sep 23, 2010
it's very funny in a not funny way. how dare we offend them with murals or bare ankles but if we are offended by their dress or customs we're called racist. one kid got beaten for eating ham or salami at school for goodness sake!! it would seem most muslims expect tolerance but are unprepared themselves to be tolerant toward others.

“Capitalistroadst er”

Since: Sep 07

Canberra

#13 Sep 23, 2010
Thanks Gottaliv. I tried posting this to News but Topix wasn't behaving well.

Since: Feb 10

Castle Hill, Australia

#14 Sep 23, 2010
Elias wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly vilifies muslim women
How?
Pollywaffle

Chester Hill, Australia

#15 Sep 23, 2010
I notice there's a security guard there - I hope the artist isn't having to pay for him. I'd like to see some big tough guys offer their services for free. This man is going to cop a lot of flack, he deserved our support.

“Ngali”

Since: Jun 08

Perth

#17 Sep 24, 2010
Meh.

He can have his painting.

He's allowed to express his ideas - but it doesn't change the fact that it's got nothing to do with him.

It's just kind of sad that he's using his freedoms to promote the restriction of freedoms for others.

Ah, unconscious irony.

“We don't have to take it”

Since: Jun 08

WhereTFamI?

#18 Sep 24, 2010
Capitalistroadster wrote:
Thanks Gottaliv. I tried posting this to News but Topix wasn't behaving well.
Yep, Topix is getting very picky. It's removed whole threads I've started (and they are only 'news') and I'm surprised this one is still going.

“We don't have to take it”

Since: Jun 08

WhereTFamI?

#19 Sep 24, 2010
ngali wrote:
Meh. He can have his painting.
He's allowed to express his ideas - but it doesn't change the fact that it's got nothing to do with him.
It's just kind of sad that he's using his freedoms to promote the restriction of freedoms for others. Ah, unconscious irony.
It's just kind of sad that others are using our freedoms against us, to promote and enforce their different belief's into our society, thus restricting our freedoms by increasing theirs.

RE: "He's allowed to express his ideas..."

Well obviously he's not as he's been asked to remove the mural.

RE: "...but it doesn't change the fact that it's got nothing to do with him.

Well obviously it has, as it "insults HIS sensitivities"

If muslims can call for a ban on something at a PUBLIC venue because it "insults their sensitivities", and that said ban is agreed to, then...?

Since: Feb 10

Castle Hill, Australia

#20 Sep 25, 2010
Elias wrote:
<quoted text>
My understanding is the council and the local mayor Sam Iskander have asked him to remove it for legal reasons.
In addition there is a danger his shop or family may be targeted by the members of the muslim community. I would hate to see him get hurt.
I'm sure it would tear you up inside to see him get hurt- but your comment about being 'targeted by members of the Muslim community' is 100% accurate and an admission that anyone who disagrees with Muslim customs and beliefs is in danger.
Richard Cranium

Australia

#21 Sep 25, 2010
On the other wall he could do one with "SAY NO TO BUDGIE SMUGGLERS" and that would balance things out a bit.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Australia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
DO you need an urgent loan for Xmas if yes? (Sep '13) Thu Christopher Deo 15
Why do Australian men like asian women so much (Mar '11) Thu Jane Doe 1,426
News Guy keeps getting texts meant for girl who give... Wed Frank 6
News Fury over plan to screen anti-vaxxer documentar... Sep 28 VACCINES MAIM KILL 1
News Get free burgers for life at this joint, if you... Sep 28 Pinky 3
News Suing Russia: Litigating over MH17 Sep 27 RUSSIAN TERRORISTS 5
weed in launceston, tasmania (Aug '14) Sep 25 Jayson 7
More from around the web