Last edited by Macbeth (2011-07-10 23:13:07)
I know, I know *picardfacepalm.jpg*Macbeth wrote:
/winces at the comments on the article
Agree 100%As long as a female officers are available to perform the revealing it's fine.
Some of us a trying to keep it that wayAnyway, stay classy Australia.
Yeah I'm not sure a prison sentence is appropriate. The fine itself is pretty hefty and should be enough of an incentive.Nic wrote:
Seems like the punishment for not doing it is a bit over the top, but it is a totally reasonable law. It is part of identifying yourself.
There was also a court case in WA where a woman wore a burqa to court and needed to be ordered to remove it to give testimony.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
I really don't see the problem here.
If a motorbike rider has a helmet on he has to take it off to be identified by police. If a women has a Burqa on she obviously needs to remove it to be identified by police.
The creation of this law was in response to a specific event where a suspect was unable to be identified by police because she was wearing a Burqa. If fact, the law was supported by the Islamic Council of Australia as a reasonable request by police.
Most countries have this already, people have to identify themselves to Police, move along people.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
There have been multiple cases/threads here where this very argument has been used, but those against it have decried it as a violation of personal rights, police state, slippery slope and whatnot.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah I'm not sure a prison sentence is appropriate. The fine itself is pretty hefty and should be enough of an incentive.Nic wrote:
Seems like the punishment for not doing it is a bit over the top, but it is a totally reasonable law. It is part of identifying yourself.
Also about the argument re: it being culturally insensitive (not on here yet, but I've heard some people talk about it in the news as being as such), it is not like the police are going to go around and demand every woman wearing a burqa to reveal themselves. It would only be during the course of police carrying out the law.
Perhaps it could be that a female officer MUST be present?FEOS wrote:
There have been multiple cases/threads here where this very argument has been used, but those against it have decried it as a violation of personal rights, police state, slippery slope and whatnot.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah I'm not sure a prison sentence is appropriate. The fine itself is pretty hefty and should be enough of an incentive.Nic wrote:
Seems like the punishment for not doing it is a bit over the top, but it is a totally reasonable law. It is part of identifying yourself.
Also about the argument re: it being culturally insensitive (not on here yet, but I've heard some people talk about it in the news as being as such), it is not like the police are going to go around and demand every woman wearing a burqa to reveal themselves. It would only be during the course of police carrying out the law.
Arizona's immigration law comes to mind...
I don't disagree with the proposal. I'm just noticing a comparison and a distinctly different reaction.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-11 02:46:30)
Again, I'm not arguing against it. It's entirely reasonable...just as similar laws that were argued against here were reasonable and had similar safeguards in place to mitigate abuse.Jaekus wrote:
Perhaps it could be that a female officer MUST be present?FEOS wrote:
There have been multiple cases/threads here where this very argument has been used, but those against it have decried it as a violation of personal rights, police state, slippery slope and whatnot.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah I'm not sure a prison sentence is appropriate. The fine itself is pretty hefty and should be enough of an incentive.
Also about the argument re: it being culturally insensitive (not on here yet, but I've heard some people talk about it in the news as being as such), it is not like the police are going to go around and demand every woman wearing a burqa to reveal themselves. It would only be during the course of police carrying out the law.
Arizona's immigration law comes to mind...
I don't disagree with the proposal. I'm just noticing a comparison and a distinctly different reaction.
And if not and no arrest can be issued, then the law is not carried out?
I dunno, it sounds idealistic and simplistic as I type. But if there were some clause or something that doesn't give police powers to de-burqa any woman without due cause, it might appease the side against it to some degree?
Yeah I think it will stir things up a bit of both sides of the fence in the months to come. Did you see the Cronulla riots we had here some years ago? It made international news, it was in Sydney, where this law is being introduced.FEOS wrote:
Again, I'm not arguing against it. It's entirely reasonable...just as similar laws that were argued against here were reasonable and had similar safeguards in place to mitigate abuse.Jaekus wrote:
Perhaps it could be that a female officer MUST be present?FEOS wrote:
There have been multiple cases/threads here where this very argument has been used, but those against it have decried it as a violation of personal rights, police state, slippery slope and whatnot.
Arizona's immigration law comes to mind...
I don't disagree with the proposal. I'm just noticing a comparison and a distinctly different reaction.
And if not and no arrest can be issued, then the law is not carried out?
I dunno, it sounds idealistic and simplistic as I type. But if there were some clause or something that doesn't give police powers to de-burqa any woman without due cause, it might appease the side against it to some degree?
Check the Australian Politics thread. It's not like everyone agrees but it is very civilI just find the difference in tone when it's somewhere else implementing a law like this...interesting.
Its very different requiring everyone prove their ID compared requiring brown people to prove they're not criminals.FEOS wrote:
There have been multiple cases/threads here where this very argument has been used, but those against it have decried it as a violation of personal rights, police state, slippery slope and whatnot.
Arizona's immigration law comes to mind...
I don't disagree with the proposal. I'm just noticing a comparison and a distinctly different reaction.
This law only works though if it can only be enacted during the course of police work. It should not be used to "check" on people at whim.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its very different requiring everyone prove their ID compared requiring brown people to prove they're not criminals.FEOS wrote:
There have been multiple cases/threads here where this very argument has been used, but those against it have decried it as a violation of personal rights, police state, slippery slope and whatnot.
Arizona's immigration law comes to mind...
I don't disagree with the proposal. I'm just noticing a comparison and a distinctly different reaction.
This law applies to anyone with a face covering of any kind, not just muslims with burkas IIRC.
Yes, this is correct.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its very different requiring everyone prove their ID compared requiring brown people to prove they're not criminals.FEOS wrote:
There have been multiple cases/threads here where this very argument has been used, but those against it have decried it as a violation of personal rights, police state, slippery slope and whatnot.
Arizona's immigration law comes to mind...
I don't disagree with the proposal. I'm just noticing a comparison and a distinctly different reaction.
This law applies to anyone with a face covering of any kind, not just muslims with burkas IIRC.
See, this is the very type of reaction I'm talking about.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its very different requiring everyone prove their ID compared requiring brown people to prove they're not criminals.FEOS wrote:
There have been multiple cases/threads here where this very argument has been used, but those against it have decried it as a violation of personal rights, police state, slippery slope and whatnot.
Arizona's immigration law comes to mind...
I don't disagree with the proposal. I'm just noticing a comparison and a distinctly different reaction.
This law applies to anyone with a face covering of any kind, not just muslims with burkas IIRC.
Arizona's immigration law is/was the same.Jaekus wrote:
This law only works though if it can only be enacted during the course of police work. It should not be used to "check" on people at whim.
Not so, requiring anyone with a face covering to remove it if requested by a Police officer is very different from racial profiling and then requiring people to prove they aren't criminals.FEOS wrote:
See, this is the very type of reaction I'm talking about.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its very different requiring everyone prove their ID compared requiring brown people to prove they're not criminals.FEOS wrote:
There have been multiple cases/threads here where this very argument has been used, but those against it have decried it as a violation of personal rights, police state, slippery slope and whatnot.
Arizona's immigration law comes to mind...
I don't disagree with the proposal. I'm just noticing a comparison and a distinctly different reaction.
This law applies to anyone with a face covering of any kind, not just muslims with burkas IIRC.
The Arizona law wasn't applicable only to "brown people," it was applicable to all illegal immigrants.
However, I think if someone were to try to put forth a law like this in the US, they would have the ACLU on them like stink on shit, tbh. Even though it makes perfect sense (the motorcycle analogy, for example), because it deals with an ethnic group, lawyers would turn it into a bowl of sensitivity bullshit.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Not so, requiring anyone with a face covering to remove it if requested by a Police officer is very different from racial profiling and then requiring people to prove they aren't criminals.FEOS wrote:
See, this is the very type of reaction I'm talking about.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its very different requiring everyone prove their ID compared requiring brown people to prove they're not criminals.
This law applies to anyone with a face covering of any kind, not just muslims with burkas IIRC.
The Arizona law wasn't applicable only to "brown people," it was applicable to all illegal immigrants.
However, I think if someone were to try to put forth a law like this in the US, they would have the ACLU on them like stink on shit, tbh. Even though it makes perfect sense (the motorcycle analogy, for example), because it deals with an ethnic group, lawyers would turn it into a bowl of sensitivity bullshit.
Read the Arizona law before you start pontificating about it, 'kay?FEOS wrote:
The Arizona law wasn't applicable only to "brown people," it was applicable to all illegal immigrants.
Not to derail this into something about the US...but it wouldn't be the motorcyclists who would cause it to be that way. They would just "benefit."Dilbert_X wrote:
Motorcyclists must have good lawyers if it couldn't be enacted in the US.
From a slightly less sensationalist report:FEOS wrote:
Read the Arizona law before you start pontificating about it, 'kay?
'kay?New South Wales police conducting routine car stops will be given the power to demand the removal of head coverings for identification.
Premier Barry O'Farrell says cabinet approved the move on Monday so police could properly identify motorists or any other people suspected of committing a crime.
"I don't care whether a person is wearing a motorcycle helmet, a burka, niqab, face veil or anything else, the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear," he said in a statement.
None, because the law hasn't been enacted due to an injunction.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wonder how many good ole boys the Arizona Police have pulled up as suspected illegals eh?
No, the Arizona law doesn't require people to prove they aren't criminals. It requires people to show proof of their immigration status. Your argument is akin to saying that the police officer asking you for your driver's license is requiring you to "prove you aren't a criminal" by showing proof you have a license to operate a vehicle. It's a nonsensical argument.Dilbert_X wrote:
Very simply:
Australia requires ID
Arizona requires people to prove they aren't criminals
See the difference?
