New Australian law to make Muslims lift veils

2011-07-12 21:59:52

#101

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6872|949

11 Bravo wrote:
How many countries are going to keep trying this?

"Muslim women would have to remove veils and show their faces to police on request or risk a prison sentence"

http://news.yahoo.com/australian-law-mu … 25536.html

I think it's passive aggressive xenophobia at work more than anything. Seems to be a rather harmless mistake.

2011-07-12 22:14:27

#102

UnkleRukus: That Guy; +236|5276|Massachusetts, USA

Nic wrote:
UnkleRukus wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
I think a person needs to adapt to the laws of a country or get out. So if Australia passes this, I see no problem with women being required to remove their veils for identification purposes.

I don't see what there is to talk about here.
It's part of their religion. This law sounds extremely disrespectful.

It would be like imposing a law against wearing rosary beads or a cross necklace because it's a choking hazard.
Not sure if srs... but if so, how is making people temporarily identify themselves at al like telling someone what accessoires to wear for safteys sake.

I personally believe people can wear whatever they want (as long as it isn't a bomb vest.) to express who they are, where they're from, or if they want to make a statement.

If a religion calls for them to wear something and they choose to wear it then I have no problem with that and neither should the government. If they choose not to wear it then that's fine as well. Laws that try force you to dress or think a certain way have no place in this modern society.

If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.

2011-07-12 22:26:36

#103

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6393|what

UnkleRukus wrote:
Nic wrote:
UnkleRukus wrote:

It's part of their religion. This law sounds extremely disrespectful.

It would be like imposing a law against wearing rosary beads or a cross necklace because it's a choking hazard.
Not sure if srs... but if so, how is making people temporarily identify themselves at al like telling someone what accessoires to wear for safteys sake.
I personally believe people can wear whatever they want (as long as it isn't a bomb vest.) to express who they are, where they're from, or if they want to make a statement.

If a religion calls for them to wear something and they choose to wear it then I have no problem with that and neither should the government. If they choose not to wear it then that's fine as well. Laws that try force you to dress or think a certain way have no place in this modern society.

.... they are allowed to wear whatever they want. They just need to be able to be identified in criminal courts, etc

2011-07-12 22:43:48

#104

Little BaBy JESUS: m8; +394|6389|'straya

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
How many countries are going to keep trying this?

"Muslim women would have to remove veils and show their faces to police on request or risk a prison sentence"

http://news.yahoo.com/australian-law-mu … 25536.html
I think it's passive aggressive xenophobia at work more than anything. Seems to be a rather harmless mistake.

How is allowing police to positively identify suspects either xenophobia or a mistake?

2011-07-13 02:37:35

#105

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6956

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
11 Bravo wrote:
How many countries are going to keep trying this?

"Muslim women would have to remove veils and show their faces to police on request or risk a prison sentence"

http://news.yahoo.com/australian-law-mu … 25536.html
I think it's passive aggressive xenophobia at work more than anything. Seems to be a rather harmless mistake.
How is allowing police to positively identify suspects either xenophobia or a mistake?

Not like aussie is banning the burqa or whatever. and for the millionth time the islamic leaders in aus are supporting the move.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2011-07-13 16:42:24

#106

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6872|949

Cybargs wrote:
Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I think it's passive aggressive xenophobia at work more than anything. Seems to be a rather harmless mistake.
How is allowing police to positively identify suspects either xenophobia or a mistake?
Not like aussie is banning the burqa or whatever. and for the millionth time the islamic leaders in aus are supporting the move.

from the article, this stemmed from a police officer failing to properly confirm the identity of a woman signing a formal complaint. It had nothign to do with a policeman pulling over a woman wearing a burqa, or of a woman refusing to remove the veil. The way the article puts it, less than 1 percent of people in Aus are Muslims devout enough to wear a burqa...so why enact such a heavy handed law?

To answer your question LBJ, there is no law currently that doesn't allow the police to positively identify suspects. The justice of the peace in this case failed to do his/her job properly, the woman didn't refuse (from what was stated in the article). Like I said, reeks of xenophobia. A knee-jerk reaction at worst, a solution for a non-existent problem at best.

2011-07-13 18:00:23

#107

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5418|Sydney

There's more to it than that. A recent court case was dropped because a woman wearing a burqa refused to remove it during testimony, which resulted in it being forfeited. The court had no powers to remove the burqa and so it changed the course of the law.

2011-07-13 18:06:11

#108

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6872|949

Australia doesn't have contempt of court laws? Or if they do, that law could be tweaked?

2011-07-13 18:22:59

#109

Little BaBy JESUS: m8; +394|6389|'straya

There was a case that involved a traffic stop and a women who refused to take her Burqa off and threatened police.
The law also applies equally to everyone, whether you're wearing a helmet, a burqa or a ski mask. This is made out to be a massive anti-Muslim law, but the fact is that regardless of what type of clothing is covering someone's face, law enforcement and justice officials needs to be able to confirm their identity.

Obviously Australia has contempt of court laws, but why should you only apply the need for identification to court cases?

2011-07-13 18:29:48

#110

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6872|949

The case you mentioned is the one discussed in the article from what I can gather. If she refuses to take off her burqa (or refuses to provide identification, for that matter), she should be dealt with accordingly (a way that doesn't include receiving a 1 year jail sentence). Failing to provide a means for police to identify you should be a law, without a doubt. It isn't already?

2011-07-13 18:30:42

#111

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5418|Sydney

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Australia doesn't have contempt of court laws? Or if they do, that law could be tweaked?

We do and they are.

I don't agree with a jail term, that's too heavy handed. But recently there were a couple cases where wearing a burqa was a bit like diplomatic immunity. I think the pendulum has swung a little too far in the other direction, but it's still the right direction.

2011-07-13 18:38:12

#112

Little BaBy JESUS: m8; +394|6389|'straya

The jail sentence is obviously too heavy handed, but I seriously doubt that a judge would ever sentence someone who has no prior criminal history to a year jail.

From what I know there is no general law that forces you to identify yourself to a police officer. There are a few exceptions IIRC such as if you're under arrest, where counter-terrorism laws have been authorised, suspected of underage drinking. I think there are a few others but I can't remember them off the top of my head. Point is there is no all encompassing law that punishes someone for not removing head coverings to identify themselves to police.

2011-07-13 18:43:00

#113

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6872|949

then it's just the media salivating and turning this into a "muslim" issue. Nothing more to see here, move along.

2011-07-13 20:13:37

#114

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5418|Sydney

Pretty much. Certain tabloid tv shows (like Today Tonight) are having a field day with this.

I fucking hate that show. Worst excuse for "journalism" I've seen in this country.

2011-07-14 01:34:36

#115

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
from the article, this stemmed from a police officer failing to properly confirm the identity of a woman signing a formal complaint. It had nothign to do with a policeman pulling over a woman wearing a burqa, or of a woman refusing to remove the veil. The way the article puts it, less than 1 percent of people in Aus are Muslims devout enough to wear a burqa...so why enact such a heavy handed law?

This applies to anyone with a head or face covering, sunglasses etc., not just muslims in burkas.
It stemmed from a woman refusing to identify herself at a traffic stop and refusing to identify herself when she signed a false statement (somebody else could have signed it while claiming to be her, so now she can't be prosecuted for signing a false statement).

I bet there are more bikies in Aus who wear face masks and will be affected than there are muslims with burkas, so its hardly a racist law.