Australian police given power to ask Muslims to remove burka

[Vitaphone Racing]

A good step forward for Australian Law. Maybe also you can give powers to owners of venues serving alcohol, betting agencies and (although I doubt they would need it) strip clubs, or anywhere else where photo ID might be required. Australia is a secular nation, we don't make laws based around religious beliefs, Muslims have no right to demand any preferential treatment just because it's in their beliefs, just like every other practicing religion in this country.

If Muslim women can wear burkas, I want to wear a ski mask on cold days.

[Aurora-Nova]

The fuck? This law is retarded. 1 year jail sentence for not complying is a bit extreme. What does the world have against Muslims?

Pretty much this.

I can see the purpose of the law, but I believe that laws regarding identification of Muslim women should require they remove the veil in a secluded area before a female officer. If the police can't make either of these situations a reality, they should piss off.

If Muslim women can wear burkas, I want to wear a ski mask on cold days.

Where the hell do you live that you can't? I believe they exist for a purpose other than robbing banks.

[Andonam]

Read "Other head and face coverings"

I'm a blue-blooded liberal who can see Stalin's backyard if I squint really, really hard (except on feminism, but that's different barrel of beans). As such, I believe all should be treated equally under the law. The burka is not being restricted for its religous affiliation, but rather for the very simple and practical purpose that it covers the face. It could be a ski mask, sameria visor, or a nun shawl; if it covers the face, it must be removed.

This is not a violation of rights at all. I do not attach myself to any "liberal outrage" that seeks special privalges for a specific faith.

[Vecherd]

For once Australia made a good law, I believe that the police should be able to know a persons face, when they find it necessary.

[Rainbows and Rivers]

Liberal Outrage That This Took So Long!

Seriously though, while I oppose laws banning women from covering their faces together, it's an entirely different story if a police officer needs to identify you. Good law.

[Rhodmhire]

I thought that the percentage of Muslim women who wear burqas was so low that it was almost insignificant in most countries besides in Saudia Arabia and Iran. Is there some kind of statistic on its prevalence in Australia available for scrutinization?

Regardless, I suppose that this is all in the name of identification.

Stompin' superstition into the ground ev-e-ry day baby.

EDIT: But one year? Come on now, that seems like a bit much.

[Sun Aut Ex]

I can see the purpose of the law, but I believe that laws regarding identification of Muslim women should require they remove the veil in a secluded area before a female officer. If the police can't make either of these situations a reality, they should piss off.

Are you fucking serious?

[Vitaphone Racing]

If Muslim women can wear burkas, I want to wear a ski mask on cold days.

Where the hell do you live that you can't? I believe they exist for a purpose other than robbing banks.

And when the police officer or venue staff ask me to remove my ski mask, I assume that I am well with in my power to tell them to get stuffed, then file a lawsuit for discrimination if they arrest me or kick me out?

[Nordavia]

It is utterly disgusting that Australia has introduced this law against devout female Islamic drivers and absolutely appalling they did not follow the proper example of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which knows how to treat Islamic female drivers with the respect which they deserve.

<http://news.bbc.co.UK/2/hi/7925941.stm>

[Furious Grandmothers]

Another horrendous stomp on freedom. Couldn't the law allow for the alternative option to conduct fingerprint identification if face identification were not practically possible??

[Sun Aut Ex]

:palm: Another horrendous stomp on freedom. Couldn't the law allow for the alternative option to conduct fingerprint identification if face identification were not practically possible??

And do you propose a national fingerprint database to be set up?

[Vecherd]

:palm: Another horrendous stomp on freedom. Couldn't the law allow for the alternative option to conduct fingerprint identification if face identification were not practically possible??

Ask for fingerprints then. Women in burqas are allowed to show their hands.

And compare those fingerprints to what, exactly?

And what, do you think the police carry fingerprint kits around with them?

[Andonam]

:palm: Another horrendous stomp on freedom. Couldn't the law allow for the alternative option to conduct fingerprint identification if face identification were not practically possible??

So they have to make a complected procedure just because you don't have the decency to remove your face covering for half a minute?

[Vitaphone Racing]

:palm: Another horrendous stomp on freedom. Couldn't the law allow for the alternative option to conduct fingerprint identification if face identification were not practically possible??

This would involve fingerprinting the entire nation, spending billions of dollars to outfit every patrol car and every police station with the facilities required for fingerprint ID and violating everyone's freedom by keeping everyone's fingerprints on file.

[TheRightWay]

I am all for giving the most respect to someones beliefs religious or not if it is feasible.

This is a case where identification needs to be made a persons beliefs have to be secondary to clear identification, the alternatives are unreasonable at this time. If in the future there is a fingerprint or DNA database that mobile and reasonable access is in place then this law may no longer be necessarily

At this time it seams like a reasonable measure to me

Maybe this can be made a bit easier on the person by having a female cop be present (kind of like when strip searches or pat downs are conducted on female suspects)

[Furious Grandmothers]

:palm: Another horrendous stomp on freedom. Couldn't the law allow for the alternative option to conduct fingerprint identification if face identification were not practically possible??

This would involve fingerprinting the entire nation, spending billions of dollars to outfit every patrol car and every police station with the facilities required for fingerprint ID and violating everyone's freedom by keeping everyone's fingerprints on file.

Everyone doesn't like my proposal because of the logistics of keeping a fingerprint database and providing a fingerprint device for police officers. But couldn't it be done, like any other major project?

Vitaphone though brought up and interesting point that I never thought about. How does keeping everyone's fingerprints on file violate everyone's freedom, when you already have everyone's face on file? I'm not being sarcastic, I sincerely want to understand how.

[Seperates]

I must have missed it.

Just economic to go before you come over to the light side of the force.

I thought it was obvious

No, no... stay on the Economic Darkside... we can be cookies n' cream, you and I.

[Sibirsky]

I thought it was obvious

No, no... stay on the Economic Darkside... we can be cookies n' cream, you and I.

I meant I thought that I was socially liberal was obvious.

[Seperates]

No, no... stay on the Economic Darkside... we can be cookies n' cream, you and I.

I meant I thought that I was socially liberal was obvious.

Nono, we all totally thought you were socialy evil... guess I don't need this dagger anymore. *chucks*

It is pretty obvious, unless people are discussing economic policy with you. Then, you whup liberal ass.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

The fuck? This law is retarded. 1 year jail sentence for not complying is a bit extreme. What does the world have against Muslims?

What do Muslims have against the world?

Whatever the fuck fanatics of *insert religion here* have.

[Sibirsky]

I meant I thought that I was socially liberal was obvious.

Nono, we all totally thought you were socialy evil... guess I don't need this dagger anymore. *chucks*

It is pretty obvious, unless people are discussing economic policy with you. Then, you whup liberal ass.

Thank you. I eat social liberals for lunch at work. The office is overflowing with them.

[Kalaspia-Shimarata]

About Bloody Time!

[Sovereign Spirits]

It's Australia. They want to know where you are every second of every day. They want to know who you are to the maximum extent possible. Despite the fact that they have 100 identification systems, they still claim they don't have enough. Well I say even one is too many. Nobody needs to know who you are. If false allegations become a crime, everyone will be afraid to say anything. That the Officer was cleared should be enough. End of story.

And for the track record of government, there should be allegations and accusations by the thousands every day. And half of 'em are bound to be spot on. I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for their Big Brother identification systems, but I'd wear something on my face, too. Maybe a ski mask, perhaps? So they can arrest me for wearing a piece of clothing they don't approve? Ridiculous.

[Enadail]

Frankly, I'm seeing this on the same line as a law that would allow officers to demand someone they stop eat pork, or that they are allowed to burn crosses/effigies of Jesus to test if a Christian is actually who he says he is.

Asking for identification in the investigation of a crime is the same as burning a cross for the sake of burning a cross?

Yup, way to miss the point. No, asking someone to remove an article of clothing they consider culturally religiously important is the same as disregarding any religions beliefs.

If you can't respect someones differences, why respect anyone?

Nobody is entitled to respect, you have to earn it.

Given cops can't keep track of everyone in their jurisdiction (is there a chart out there I'm unaware of), they have to start at a reasonable amount of respect and adjust based on the actual interaction. And no, everyone is entitled to a level of respect, and you gain/lose it by your actions. You don't start at 0 and work your way up. If no one respects you at all, how the heck are you supposed to earn it, specially in minutes?

And if identity is that important, why not put a little more effort into it (like allowing a female officer to come).

Because they're the police. It's their job to enforce law and order, not to fuck around because some people have backwards superstitions?

Actually, its their job to enforce law and order, not to make assessments as to if beliefs are backwards or superstitious. And given the law puts up with a ton of other beliefs just because, I'm failing to see how this is different.

FranklyThis basically reads as Islamophobia. We don't like burquas, they mean we have to do extra work, so now we can tell you to take um off!

Uhh... did you miss the part where they didn't have the power to make Muslims take off burkas at all before this law? You'd prefer it that they just continue flaunting the law?

What did before have to do with my statement? My point is now, they have that power. I'm not sure how previous to this they were flaunting the law?

Or would you prefer that the law allowed Muslims to get special treatment?

I think Muslims should get the same treatment that all other religions do: respect for their beliefs. It doesn't matter how backwards/superstitious it is, if its not harming someone else or infringing on someone else's rights, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. I'm failing to see how waring a burqa is dangerous, and how a little courtesy is special treatment.

No it doesn't... to me it reeks of priviledge. It's not that we don't like burqas (*cough* even if they are a sign of women's repression *cough*), it's just that we are giving a right to these people that other people don't have on the basis of a religion. It's an unreasonable request at 3:00 a.m. to ask for a female officer when there are one or two perfectly capable male officers standing right in front of her. The officers merely want to I.D. the person, not rape her.

And while it might be hard to believe, to some people's cultural/religious beliefs, it is inappropriate, as much as some people don't like women wearing short skirts, and while you might not believe it, to some people, they are indoctrinated to believe it is the equivalent of lust which leads to rape. I'm not saying it makes sense, but that's how its perceived. They think it indecent and inappropriate.

I get the security concerns, and I stand the by the notion that they have to be identified. But I don't see as to how its a right they're getting that others don't have. It kinda sounds like the whole "gay people shouldn't get special marriage privileges, they have the same ones everyone else gets, to marry someone of the opposite sex!". Its a special privilege in the sense that the religion has a component that others don't, but actually, many Indians also believe women should wear veils. How many cultures/religions need to have the notion before its no longer a "special privilege"? Why is one not enough?

I don't like burqas, I agree that they're a symbol of oppression and repression. But I know a number of girls who would not at all be comfortable with a male cop patting them down. They'd be more then happy to get patted down if the cops felt it necessary, but they would be completely opposed to a random guy, authority figure or not, doing it. If its 3 AM and they need a pat down, should we say, screw it, you have to have w/e cop asked you pat you down? Muslim tradition also says (and I might botch this a bit, but the idea holds) non-male muslims may not handle a dead muslim body. If the only coroner on staff at the time is a female, and a muslim body arrives, screw muslim tradition, that coroner can do w/e they want? Once you start to say that something like getting a female cop to assist is out of reason, I have to question what is reasonable.

[Vortiaganica]

It's Australia. They want to know where you are every second of every day. They want to know who you are to the maximum extent possible. Despite the fact that they have 100 identification systems, they still claim they don't have enough. Well I say even one is too many. Nobody needs to know who you are. If false allegations become a crime, everyone will be afraid to say anything. That the Officer was cleared should be enough. End of story.

And for the track record of government, there should be allegations and accusations by the thousands every day. And half of 'em are bound to be spot on. I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for their Big Brother identification systems, but I'd wear something on my face, too. Maybe a ski mask, perhaps? So they can arrest me for wearing a piece of clothing they don't approve? Ridiculous.

Sauce ?/.