Australian police given power to ask Muslims to remove burka

[Kobeanare]

That is correct. The word burqa does not appear once in the Koran. It is a cultural piece of clothing that originated around Saudi Arabia. There have been prominent Imams that have stated the burqa should be banned only to be met with violence. The cultural significance that this piece of cloth represents are backed up by groups that simply do not seem capable of living in an open democracy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/7053101/Paris-imam-backs-Frances-burqa-ban.html

If any non Muslim argued this many in this forum would declare them a racist. The burqa has nothing to do with Islam but alot to do with cultrual identity are oppression. Requiring people to show their faces when dealing with the law is just commonsense. Requiring people to show their faces when in a store is also comonsense. Afterall we do not allow people wearing motorbike helmets into a bank.

So we agree - the crucifix has nothing to do with Christianity and people should be punished for wearing them in public.

No, but if it prevents a police officer from identifying you, you'll have to temporarily remove it so that said identification can be made, after which you may resume wearing it.

[Scientific socks]

Freedom of religion has its limits.

As long as it does not excessively infringe on other freedoms, freedom of religion ftw. You need to show that the burka infringes on other freedoms, that are more important, and to an excessive extent.

Corrects. And the freedom of safety when there are masked individuals walking around in public is challenged by the burqa

When something is not mentioned in religous text, has a culltural instead of a religous history

If their interpretation of the Koran results in the burka, even though it may not be mentioned in the Koran, I fail to see how the burka can be removed from being a religious symbol. Also, are you claiming that religion >> culture here?[/quote]

Is there a line in the Australian constituion regarding cultural freedom? If not, legally speaking religion is greater than culture

and has negative impact on the wider society the government is completely free to ban the religion or particular element of it.

What negative impact on wider society, and by wider society who do you refer to? Also, as we have already pointed out numerous times, you are advocating harming the minority if the majority gets to benefit?

Masked individuals are limit their social interaction and in doing so segregate the community. The right of safety is also diminished when a person can not be identified. It is a great hinderance to identification and prosecution.

And if you really deem removing a piece of cultural cloth when asked by the police as "harming" then all actions in the law would be deemed harmful. If showing the face is such an issue for an individual they may need to better select their country. For human safety we can not have masked individuals walking about wherever they choose.

[Scientific socks]

Freedom of religion has its limits.
When something is not mentioned in religous text, has a culltural instead of a religous history and has negative impact on the wider society the government is completely free to ban the religion or particular element of it.

Because you feel that Burqas are not important, they must not be important.

Therefore, we should ban it, correct?

Lets flip this. If I were to say something was of religous significance to me and I do not need to show any religous history behind it, you can not argue with my beliefs and must accept it? Oh the looney possibilities that I could come up with.

Burqa's are important as they hide ones identity. If something can not aid criminal activity, does not promote social isolation, does not physically or mentally harm another and is has no negative financial impact on another I could not care less about it. When and where burqas are acceptable is an important issue as it hides ones identity and causes social isolation. There appears to be physical harm when the woman wearing burqas do not get enough vitamin D and there is mental harm by limiting ones interaction in the world. All of this limits ones financial opportunities and would cause the public to have to pay for the negative criminal, social, physical and mental effects it causes.

[Maurepas]

I don't see the problem with that, afterall, it's in a matter of identification, you can't very well have one's face covered for that.

It's not a ban, that would be a breach of her rights, and an injustice. This just requires her to remove it for things that removing face coverings are required for.

[Scientific socks]

Remind me who is getting harmed by a Muslim wearing a burqa over her hair and face?

This isn't about who is getting harmed, this is about police being able to ID suspects if they suspect a crime has been committed.

And like I keep saying, they have every right to do so, but the woman should be able to request for a female officer to carry out the identification.[/quote]

What happens if this is a remote region and the female police officer requires a day off or is on the otherside of the region? Who is going to pay for that bill?
Does that mean that the person can not be identified?

As far as I am concerned the person should be required to show their face on sight and if not they will need to go to the nearest police station and be held unto such time a female police officer is avaliable. If the person is ever let out of sight they will then claim they were not the individual.

[Kobeanare]

I see it. But I don't see why they need to violate people's freedom to religion in the process of identifying people.

*Shrug* don't you guys have a law that bans wearing of masks/face coverings in public places? I assume this thread is american.

Despite the fact that the thread title specifically says 'Australian'? Seriously?

[Forster Keys]

*Shrug* don't you guys have a law that bans wearing of masks/face coverings in public places? I assume this thread is american.

Some individual counties do. But, I haven't ever seen an American Muslim woman wearing a burka, so...

I lived in an area of Sydney with a large muslim population for several years. I saw two women wearing a burqa on one occasion when I was walking. Haven't seen any burqas since.

Do you know how BIG Australia is? You could have a town with a handful of officers, and then next town is two hours away!

Muslims don't tend to gravitate to such towns.

True. And one would suspect the burqa wearing types would probably live close to a mosque, so...

[Airstrip 100]

Because you feel that Burqas are not important, they must not be important.

Therefore, we should ban it, correct?

Lets flip this. If I were to say something was of religous significance to me and I do not need to show any religous history behind it, you can not argue with my beliefs and must accept it? Oh the looney possibilities that I could come up with.

Burqa's are important as they hide ones identity. If something can not aid criminal activity, does not promote social isolation, does not physically or mentally harm another and is has no negative financial impact on another I could not care less about it. When and where burqas are acceptable is an important issue as it hides ones identity and causes social isolation. There appears to be physical harm when the woman wearing burqas do not get enough vitamin D and there is mental harm by limiting ones interaction in the world. All of this limits ones financial opportunities and would cause the public to have to pay for the negative criminal, social, physical and mental effects it causes.

Oh no, not social isolation. We must force people to be part of the community.
"When the individual feels, the community reels." - Brave New World


If they want to harm themselves by not getting enough vitamin D, then they can do so. It's not your place to protect people against their will 'for their own good'.

[Scientific socks]

Lets flip this. If I were to say something was of religous significance to me and I do not need to show any religous history behind it, you can not argue with my beliefs and must accept it? Oh the looney possibilities that I could come up with.

Burqa's are important as they hide ones identity. If something can not aid criminal activity, does not promote social isolation, does not physically or mentally harm another and is has no negative financial impact on another I could not care less about it. When and where burqas are acceptable is an important issue as it hides ones identity and causes social isolation. There appears to be physical harm when the woman wearing burqas do not get enough vitamin D and there is mental harm by limiting ones interaction in the world. All of this limits ones financial opportunities and would cause the public to have to pay for the negative criminal, social, physical and mental effects it causes.

Oh no, not social isolation. We must force people to be part of the community.
"When the individual feels, the community reels." - Brave New World


If they want to harm themselves by not getting enough vitamin D, then they can do so. It's not your place to protect people against their will 'for their own good'.

So thanks for ignoring my first paragraph in its entirity. I guess you did not want to try and have a consistent through on what is and is not acceptable in public. As for the quote, meh

And it is the governments place to protect people. More than just the vitamin D which is the only part you bothered to look at. I also mentioned social and security reasons amoungst other things. But I don't expect you to look into that.

[Airstrip 100]

Oh no, not social isolation. We must force people to be part of the community.
"When the individual feels, the community reels." - Brave New World


If they want to harm themselves by not getting enough vitamin D, then they can do so. It's not your place to protect people against their will 'for their own good'.

So thanks for ignoring my first paragraph in its entirity. I guess you did not want to try and have a consistent through on what is and is not acceptable in public. As for the quote, meh

And it is the governments place to protect people. More than just the vitamin D which is the only part you bothered to look at. I also mentioned social and security reasons amoungst other things. But I don't expect you to look into that.

Firstly, please leave out the ad hominem. It isn't scoring any points, except maybe in your imagination.

Secondly, the government has no right to protect people against their will.

Also, it's not your place to judge whether an item has religious/cultural significance.

[-St George]

let me stop you right there

Should I mention that the numbers presented there are only for for incidents in Europe?

You should, just as I should point out that the rest of the world, non First World nations, are much less stable than Europe, with a huge number of separatist movements, anti government militias, etc.

[-St George]

Because you feel that Burqas are not important, they must not be important.

Therefore, we should ban it, correct?

Lets flip this. If I were to say something was of religous significance to me and I do not need to show any religous history behind it, you can not argue with my beliefs and must accept it? Oh the looney possibilities that I could come up with.

Burqa's are important as they hide ones identity. If something can not aid criminal activity, does not promote social isolation, does not physically or mentally harm another and is has no negative financial impact on another I could not care less about it. When and where burqas are acceptable is an important issue as it hides ones identity and causes social isolation. There appears to be physical harm when the woman wearing burqas do not get enough vitamin D and there is mental harm by limiting ones interaction in the world. All of this limits ones financial opportunities and would cause the public to have to pay for the negative criminal, social, physical and mental effects it causes.

Sources.

You need them.

[Scientific socks]

So thanks for ignoring my first paragraph in its entirity. I guess you did not want to try and have a consistent through on what is and is not acceptable in public. As for the quote, meh

And it is the governments place to protect people. More than just the vitamin D which is the only part you bothered to look at. I also mentioned social and security reasons amoungst other things. But I don't expect you to look into that.

Firstly, please leave out the ad hominem. It isn't scoring any points, except maybe in your imagination.

Secondly, the government has no right to protect people against their will.

Also, it's not your place to judge whether an item has religious/cultural significance.

1) You are unwilling to extend your logic to other situations. This at best shows your own bias.

2) It is completely in the will of the public to identify criminals and it is the responsibility of the government to help capture them. Are you suggesting that people do not wish to be able to criminals or are you suggesting that the role of the government is to help anarchy?

And if it is not my place to judge it would be no bodies meaning anarchy again because anyone would be able to claim anything. There are safety concerns with the burqa both for the individual wearing it and the general public.

[The Parkus Empire]

Very few Muslim women wear burkas. Fewer than the percentage of Christian women who wear ankle-length skirts all the time, I'd wager.

True. Yet that means nothing in terms of wether it is right or wrong in society.

And when people start normally identify others by the features of their ankles I will be against ankle length skirts too.

I'm not too fond of either implement of misogyny, just like I'm not fond of the notion of forcing women to cover their nipples without doing the same to men. However, at least with the first two there is a choice, and that is the way it ought to remain.

[Gravlen]

Should I mention that the numbers presented there are only for for incidents in Europe?

You should, just as I should point out that the rest of the world, non First World nations, are much less stable than Europe, with a huge number of separatist movements, anti government militias, etc.

Pfft! Next thing you know you're going to say that most terrorist attacks happen for reasons that go deeper than mere religious edicts, or point out that most terrorist attacks today happen in areas which are currently undergoing an open conflict or is close to the brink of conflict.

[The Chaos Heart]

Good.

No one is exempt from the law, even because of religion. If you need to be identified for whatever reason, your religion does not trump the safety and well being of the population. It's not asking much. just a quick peek under the rug if you will to see who you are, and you can go right back to being a recluse.

[Gravlen]

Answer the other posters, then come back and justify why freedom of religion < freedom for police to "see people's faces for motherfucking identification purposes".

So in your world, I can get a bunch of guys together in burkas, rob a bank with half of them, have the other half just hang around nearby without being involved, and then when they try to investigate, I can have a sook about my religion, and since they can't prove which of us robbed the bank, we get off?

...you can do that with ski masks today, even without having a sook about your religion.

[Gravlen]

As long as it does not excessively infringe on other freedoms, freedom of religion ftw. You need to show that the burka infringes on other freedoms, that are more important, and to an excessive extent.

Corrects. And the freedom of safety when there are masked individuals walking around in public is challenged by the burqa

There is no "freedom of safety".

For human safety we can not have masked individuals walking about wherever they choose.

Yes we can. Absolutely.

[Trivval]

Erm. In WA at least (Western Australia, for you Americans), if you are pulled over and you're wearing a mask the police can't actually tell you to remove it. ^__^

[Airstrip 100]

Firstly, please leave out the ad hominem. It isn't scoring any points, except maybe in your imagination.

Secondly, the government has no right to protect people against their will.

Also, it's not your place to judge whether an item has religious/cultural significance.

1) You are unwilling to extend your logic to other situations. This at best shows your own bias.

2) It is completely in the will of the public to identify criminals and it is the responsibility of the government to help capture them. Are you suggesting that people do not wish to be able to criminals or are you suggesting that the role of the government is to help anarchy?

And if it is not my place to judge it would be no bodies meaning anarchy again because anyone would be able to claim anything. There are safety concerns with the burqa both for the individual wearing it and the general public.

1. That's what Robespierre said before setting up 'revolutionary tribunals'.

2. Your degree in theology, please.

[Keronians]

This isn't about who is getting harmed, this is about police being able to ID suspects if they suspect a crime has been committed.

And like I keep saying, they have every right to do so, but the woman should be able to request for a female officer to carry out the identification.

What happens if this is a remote region and the female police officer requires a day off or is on the otherside of the region? Who is going to pay for that bill?
Does that mean that the person can not be identified?

As far as I am concerned the person should be required to show their face on sight and if not they will need to go to the nearest police station and be held unto such time a female police officer is avaliable. If the person is ever let out of sight they will then claim they were not the individual.[/quote]

I'll accept that once it is acceptable for a police officer to tell a woman that they aren't able to have a female to carry out a body check.

[Delmire]

THIS IS A BAD IDEA!!!

Instead EVERYONE should wear a Burka, that way no one would be able to buy cigarettes or alcohol!

(are they 18 or 54????) Cant ask for ID

Think of the benefits! It probably go out of fashion if other religions started wearing it anyway.

"So we agree - the crucifix has nothing to do with Christianity and people should be punished for wearing them in public."

Yeah, the symbol of Christianity with Jesus nailed to it has nothing to do with Christianity...I thought the symbol for Islam was the cresant? not an exaggerated balaclava, why dont criminals use burkas instead anyway?

Just some wood for the fire.

[Furious Grandmothers]

THIS IS A BAD IDEA!!!

Instead EVERYONE should wear a Burka, that way no one would be able to buy cigarettes or alcohol!

(are they 18 or 54????) Cant ask for ID

Think of the benefits! It probably go out of fashion if other religions started wearing it anyway.

"So we agree - the crucifix has nothing to do with Christianity and people should be punished for wearing them in public."

Yeah, the symbol of Christianity with Jesus nailed to it has nothing to do with Christianity...I thought the symbol for Islam was the cresant? not an exaggerated balaclava, why dont criminals use burkas instead anyway?

Just some wood for the fire.

Thanks for giving us wood. Constructive indeed.

[North Calaveras]

Good.

No one is exempt from the law, even because of religion. If you need to be identified for whatever reason, your religion does not trump the safety and well being of the population. It's not asking much. just a quick peek under the rug if you will to see who you are, and you can go right back to being a recluse.

This ^

[Gauthier]

So in your world, I can get a bunch of guys together in burkas, rob a bank with half of them, have the other half just hang around nearby without being involved, and then when they try to investigate, I can have a sook about my religion, and since they can't prove which of us robbed the bank, we get off?

...you can do that with ski masks today, even without having a sook about your religion.

And we must take into account the epidemic of robberies committed by people wearing burqas.