New Australian law to make Muslims lift veils

[The Northerner]

CANBERRA, Australia — Muslim women would have to remove veils and show their faces to police on request or risk a prison sentence under proposed new laws in Australia's most populous state that have drawn criticism as culturally insensitive.

A vigorous debate that the proposal has triggered reflects the cultural clashes being ignited by the growing influx of Muslim immigrants and the unease that visible symbols of Islam are causing in predominantly white Christian Australia since 1973 when the government relaxed its immigration policy.

Under the law proposed by the government of New South Wales, a woman who defies police by refusing to remove her face veil could be sentenced to a year in prison and fined 5,500 Australian dollars ($5,900).

The bill -- to be voted on by state parliament in August -- has been condemned by civil libertarians and many Muslims as an overreaction to a traffic offense case involving a Muslim woman driver in a "niqab," or a veil that reveals only the eyes.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/10/new_australian_law_to_make_muslims_lift_veils

[pnwmom]

1. That sounds like a reasonable law. It should also be a requirement

if a woman driving in a veil hits you with her car. Otherwise, how would you identify her if you had to? (In my state you don't have to call police if the damage is limited -- just exchange insurance information.)

This isn't an overreaction. It's just common sense. It's not as if veiled women in Saudi Arabia ever end up in this situation -- they're not allowed to drive.

The article you posted tells the story of a woman named Carnita Matthews, and shows why such a law is justifiable. The only argument coming from the civil libertarians is that it's unnecessary because there are few women wearing face obscuring veils. Why would the number of women doing this be important?

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/10/new_australian_law_to_make_muslims_lift_veils/?page=2

An official complaint was made in Matthews' name against Senior Constable Paul Fogarty, the policeman who gave her the ticket. The complaint accused Fogarty of racism and of attempting to tear off her veil during their roadside encounter.

Unbeknown to Matthews, the encounter was recorded by a camera inside Fogarty's squad car. The video footage showed her aggressively berating a restrained Fogarty and did not support her claim that he tried to grab her veil before she reluctantly and angrily lifted it to show her face.

Matthews was sentenced in November to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement to police.

But that conviction and sentence were quashed on appeal last month without her serving any time in jail because a judge was not convinced that it was Matthews who signed the false statutory declaration. The woman who signed the document had worn a burqa and a justice of the peace who witnessed the signing had not looked beneath the veil to confirm her identity.

[AsahinaKimi]

2. Silly question but...

Being that most States require a photo ID on their Drivers License, would a normally veiled woman have to show her face? She would right?

[pnwmom]

3. I don't know. I read about a woman who was fighting for that years ago,

but I haven't heard anything lately.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. They'd be just like passport photos. There'd need to be a full-face photo...

We don't have a national identity card or anything, and the only forms of photo ID are drivers licenses and passports. While the requirements for a license photo wouldn't be as stringent as for a passport where yr not allowed to smile, the face has to be a certain size in the photo. blah blah, licenses hold a hefty weighting when it comes to providing proof of identity for the big stuff that gives people access to Medicare and gets them a Tax File Number. I very much doubt that covering the face in an id photo like that would be considered sufficient proof of identity...

[Violet_Crumble]

5. You want a law that would allow you to demand women show you their faces?

That would be one hell of an oppressive and misogynistic law, imo. btw, the first reaction of anyone who's not trying to intimidate a woman wearing a niqab would be to take the rego of the car if they want to identify a driver, not to demand she show you her face.

And it is an overreaction due to be voted in by a Right Wing state government...

[MADem]

11. Huh?

WTF? "Right wing state government?"

Oppressive and misogynistic?

How do you know that the person named on the registration is the driver of the vehicle? It could be a friend's car, a rental, a relative's. The registration ain't gonna give you squat!

How do you know who hit you? How do you know it's even a woman under that outfit?

You need to see the LICENSE, with a picture, a name and address, and then the FACE. Then, you'll know.

Some lady in a burqa hits you, and when you take her to court, she says "I am falsely accused by this crazy person--I wasn't driving, it was my sister Matilda, who borrowed my car that day, without my permission I might add, and by the way, she just flew back to Kabul! Go chase her if you want money!"

And there ain't jack you could do, because you never saw her face.

I think the law should apply equally to men, FWIW, who are wearing, as one poster suggested, Mexican Wrestling Masks...or any other mask, bandanna, baclava, or what-have-you.

[pnwmom]

15. I agree -- it should apply to all types of face masks.

People who don't like that can take other public or private transportation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. Do you include motorcycle helmets in that?

[MADem]

99. Absolutely--if "competent authority" asks you to remove it.

You go into a bank with a full face helmet on and try to cash a check? The teller should say "Take it off" and if you refuse, she should say "Get the hell out of my bank" while reaching for the panic button.

I think if you get in a wreck, the law should require that you remove your helmet to establish your positive identity to the other driver, and you should be fined if you refuse. If that's not the law, it should be.

I think if you're a Michael Jackson imitator in a surgical mask, you should have to take the thing off if asked by "competent authority."

If you want to get into a secure building, like a federal facility where you have to present ID/sign in, get that crap off your face or you may not pass.

I also think that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone who doesn't want to show their face. Sort of an extension of the No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service rule.

In some cities in US and Europe, you can't even get into a bank with a hood or a ballcap. Too many bank robbers trying to obscure their faces...In Rome, you have to just about get undressed, put everything except your check or cash and ID into a locker, and be buzzed into the lobby under the watchful eyes of guards with automatic weapons.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

108. There are fewer competent authorities than many realize

There are many circumstances when one does not have to provide identification to police.

These days I often wear a flip front helmet. Full face but the center flips up for access. Just for giggles I wore it into my bank (Credit Union technically) flipped up...no one said a word.

The reality is civilized behavior is pretty clear, something hard for religious zealots, muslims in this case) to grasp. Identify your self visually when required and then you can wear whatever you damn well choose. However, if you vary from accepted societal norms, expect some hassles including those of us who will mock your medieval behaviors.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. You appear to have understood correctly...

The NSW govt is a Right Wing state government and there are many misogynistic anti-Muslim types in full support of it...

[pnwmom]

24. And you didn't bother to even try to make a reasonable reply to that post. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

28. It was entirely reasonable...

Not sure what yr problem is...

[pnwmom]

29. The poster described a situation in which a driver would need to be

able to identify another driver.

And you didn't have an answer.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. I've already answered that question elsewhere, that's why...

There's no requirement under Australian law for drivers to demand people remove items of clothing for identification purposes. When I've been in a prang, I reported it to the police, swapped insurance and rego details with the other driver, but to demand they submit to some ID check from me, another driver, is not on. I don't give a shit how they may do it in the US, but this isn't some citizen police state and I'd tell anyone demanding more POI than I've given them to go fuck themselves in no uncertain terms..

[pnwmom]

36. You're absolutely right. There's no requirement under Australian law

for this now. That's why this is a PROPOSED law.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. No, the proposed law is in NSW only and only applies to police...

It does not apply to other drivers at all.

[pnwmom]

12. If she hit my car with her car, yes.

Or if she hit one of my sons cars' with her car, yes.

Taking information from the registration of the car wouldn't prove who the driver was. And neither would looking at a license unless you could see that the person driving was the SAME person who was on the license. The insurance company could decide not to cover the claim if the woman's identity was in question.

It's not like it's unheard of for people to drive without a license or using someone else's license. That's why we have photos. It defeats the whole purpose of the photos if someone can cover their face and prevent you from identifying them.

This is common sense, not some right wing overreaction.

The article in the OP described the case that led to this law, and this case shows why it is necessary.


http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/...

An official complaint was made in Matthews' name against Senior Constable Paul Fogarty, the policeman who gave her the ticket. The complaint accused Fogarty of racism and of attempting to tear off her veil during their roadside encounter.

Unbeknown to Matthews, the encounter was recorded by a camera inside Fogarty's squad car. The video footage showed her aggressively berating a restrained Fogarty and did not support her claim that he tried to grab her veil before she reluctantly and angrily lifted it to show her face.

Matthews was sentenced in November to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement to police.

But that conviction and sentence were quashed on appeal last month without her serving any time in jail because a judge was not convinced that it was Matthews who signed the false statutory declaration. The woman who signed the document had worn a burqa and a justice of the peace who witnessed the signing had not looked beneath the veil to confirm her identity.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Yr not a cop. You have no right to demand anything like that...

Seriously, I'd tell you to fuck off and mind yr own business if you did that to me.

Y'know, I wouldn't object to yr posts if you opposed ALL clothing that obscures faces, but it's only when it comes to Muslims and niqabs that you have anything to say.

[pnwmom]

22. In the State of Washington I certainly should have that right.

Because in our state, the police don't have to be called for minor traffic incidents. It is up to the two drivers to exchange information. It would be up to me then to make sure that the person who hit me was the same person on the driver's license.

You say that you wouldn't object to my posts if I opposed all clothing that obscures faces. Just a couple posts above this one I already said exactly that. I don't care whether it's a niqab or a Halloween mask or whatever. If you get into an accident you should remove the face covering so the other driver or police can verify your identity.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. This isn't about yr state. This is about a proposed law in a state of Australia...

You say that you oppose all clothing that obscures faces, but I can't recall seeing you in the past talking about anything other than Muslims and burqas. That's all...

While I'd have no problem with a law that stated anything that obscures faces is to be removed for identification by police. I would have major issues with the same law applying so anyone could demand the same thing...

[pnwmom]

31. You can't recall me saying this in the past?

Like you read all my posts?

:rofl:

I had ALREADY said it in this very thread. I repeat: I don't care what kind of mask or covering obscures the face, it should be removed to allow for identification if a driver wearing one gets involved in an accident.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Fine, show me all the threads on hoodies then.

And I think you need to slow down and read more carefully. I didn't say anything about reading all yr posts....


That's nice, btw. I hope to see you not focus so specifically on Muslims in the future and instead show support for a general ban for all coverings, something which I would support...

[pnwmom]

38. You're the first person I've seen comparing veils to hoodies,

so I can't show you those threads.

Hoodies in the U.S. don't cover the face. Do they in Australia? If so, we're talking about two different things.

And you did say: "but I can't recall seeing you in the past talking about anything other than Muslims and burqas." Which clearly implies that you've been reading all my posts.

[Violet_Crumble]

posting hiccup...self delete n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I've seen many others make that same comparison...

Yes, hoodies do obscure the face of drivers.

[pnwmom]

42. How does a hoodie obscure the face? I haven't ever seen a sweatshirt

with a hood that obscured the face.

But if they exist, then anyone should have to remove them under the same circumstances that a veil wearing woman would.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. Bollocks - hoodies do not obscure the face from the front

They may make if difficult to see the face from the side, but you know very well we're talking about face-to-face interaction.

Your demand to see posts about hoodies is a red herring.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. Bullshit. They can do exactly that...

So, do you think a law should be aimed at ALL things that obscure a face, or should they be specifically aimed at niqabs?

[pnwmom]

72. This thing came up on Google images as a "hoodie."

[Violet_Crumble]

74. That one's not something I've seen...

The ones I see are where the hoods are worn pulled right over the head and down over the forehead and nose and the person wearing it doesn't look up....

[pnwmom]

76. So what you've seen is basically a normal hood that the wearer

is wearing in an "abnormal" way?

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Yes. After reading info on the proposed bill, I don't think they'd be seen as full-face covering...

Though the ones you posted images of certainly would be. I'd be thinking motorbike helmets would be an obvious inclusion, though. I know banks have long had rules where customers have to remove their helmets before walking into a bank, but I've sometimes seen people walking along the street with their helmets still on. Not sure why they'd do that as I'd have thought helmets could be uncomfortable...

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. Pull a hood over your nose and you can't see forwards

So in answer to your earlier question, of course that should be banned - and already would be for that matter. Obscuring the forehead isn't a problem - but you can't get a hoodie (ignoring the Star Wars stormtrooper costume, or the one with the zip from the top, which neither you nor I have ever seen before) to obscure the eyes, nose and mouth from the front (if they don't look up? Well, everyone's face is obscured if they cover it with their hands, or keep their head turned away. We're talking about what people would be doing if they had been in a traffic accident, remember).

And yes, any such law should include anything which obscures the face. More realistically than 'Mexican wrestling masks' for traffic accidents, this means full-face motorcycle helmets.

[MADem]

98. Ha ha ha! I know a Star Wars Nerd that would LOVE that stupid thing!! nt

[pnwmom]

73. Another "hoodie." I've never seen one around here.

Thankfully.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. I think that one's been modified with the eyeholes and the zipper...

I've got a bog-standard one from the Eddie Vedder show I went to, and it's got a zip up the front, but the hood itself doesn't have a zip or anything...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. Not sure that is true

IIRC, the law is exchange of data, not visual ID. No one has ever insisted I remove my full face motorcycle helmet

The other part is that there are reasonable ways to have confidence in what you have been told. Does the driver know where to find their ID and insurance info...other basic clues.

You also have the option of calling for a cop. Even in Seattle, they will respond.

[intaglio]

79. Nice piece of rabble rousing

The question is one of identity. Veiling in any form impedes the identification of both victims and perpetrators. The ridiculous, bronze-age, misogynistic traditions (not religions) that insist women follow this tradition deserve to be consigned to the garbage heap. Remember it is only ever customary usage that enforces this deformity of a practise.

[slackmaster]

80. Driving is a privilege. Privileges come with conditions.

HTH

[MH1]

81. Oh bullshit. How do you get 'oppressive and misogynistic' from having to show one's face?

the ONLY case I can think of that is problematic is if a person wears a veil because they have been terribly disfigured. But even if that case, if the veil is asked to be lifted for a good reason, I think a rational person even in that case would not think it wrong. It would be abusive for other people to harass someone who was disfigured by asking them to remove a face covering repeatedly for no good reason, and could be handled under abuse and harassment laws.

So I can think of no reason why I should have to see masked people walking around me and not be able to identify them in case of a problem.

Furthermore, it is 'culturally insensitive' to me, for a woman to be veiled, because I was raised to believe (rightly or wrongly) that the veil symbolizes subjugation and repression of women, and it pisses me off to see it. So when do my cultural sensitivities get to be considered? Wait, whose country are we in?

[MH1]

82. Oh yeah, I forgot ... it's culturally insensitive and oppressive to demonize the swastika, too?

I know there are some people who revere the swastika and what it stands for. We must respect that culture, right?

:puke:

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Honeycombe8]

94. The law would probably require ANYONE to show their faces (i.e., their identity)...

it just so happens that it's WOMEN who cover up their faces.

Makes sense to me. There is no right to hide from authorities or other citizens. If you're going to live in a free society where people have rights, you have to recognize that other people besides you have rights, as well. The right to see the identity of whoever slams a car into them or whatever. The right of society for their law enforcement to verify identity by viewing someone's face.

It's not disrobing the body. Not all muslim women choose to cover their faces. It's a thing of respect and a choice, it seems, for them to cover their faces, but it's not a modesty thing that all in the culture share. It's also not a religious requirement. Only certain cultures cover the face. The muslims in some countries don't do that at all.

If I go to live in a muslim country, they wouldn't allow me to dress and act fully as if I were living in the U.S. They have their own culture, their own laws, that all must obey. So does Australia and other countries.

Seems a reasonable requirement.

[Quantess]

109. Yes, of course. That would be the only reasonable option.

It's not like you're demanding to see her vagina. You are being ridiculous, in my humble opinion.

[MADem]

4. Well, when in Rome, and all that....I can see both sides of this issue.

When Australians visit or reside in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other places where the niqab or its equivalent are in common use, they aren't permitted to swig down beers, stroll about in skimpy bathing suits, and sing Waltzing Matilda during the Call To Prayer. They're expected to conform, to be "culturally sensitive" to an extent, with the mores of the culture where they're visiting or living. If they aren't sufficiently sensitive, they are thrown in jail, for doing things that are perfectly legal in their own country.

That "cultural sensitivity" stuff is a two-way street. Western societies place a high value on being able to see people's faces, it's just how they roll. They like to be able to identify people, and they find a value in it, for law enforcement and other purposes.

I think if you're going to live in a culture that finds that kind of attire bothersome to the point that they outlaw or restrict it, it's time to readjust your priorities. If it means that much to you, it's perhaps time to move. Otherwise, look at a wardrobe adjustment.

The flip side of the argument is that there aren't an awful lot of women in Australia who wear the stupid headgear. It's a very small universe, actually:

Critics say the bill smacks of anti-Muslim bias given how few women in Australia wear burqas. In a population of 23 million, only about 400,000 Australians are Muslim. Community advocates estimate that fewer than 2,000 women where face veils, and it is likely that even a smaller percentage drives.

We'll see what happens in August, when the vote is taken.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. The difference is we're supposed to be a multicultural society...

I can't see the faces of kids wearing hoodies, so I'm not going to get all upset about a miniscule number of women in the population that wear niqabs. I really do think this has far less to do with seeing people's faces than being driven by anti-Muslim sentiment that's reasonably prevalent in our society...

[MADem]

9. Well, this ain't "we" -- this is largely Christian Australia discussing this issue.

They're much less diverse than we are.

Would you feel differently if there were LOTS, as opposed to minescule numbers of women wearing these veils? What if the women started robbing grocery and convenience stores at gunpoint, and melting into a crowd of people dressed in similar fashion? Or shoplifting? Or pickpocketing? Poof--your wallet is gone, now what did the perp look like?

Where ya stand depends on where ya sit, I've found. I do see both sides of this coin, myself, having had to conform in a number of different societies with different standards of conduct, which were at times quite annoyingly restrictive to my way of life, but I conformed because my hosts had their own standards and their "rights" by virtue of their laws trumped my wishes--I'd be arrested if I tried to live by my rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I get the feeling you don't know much about Australia then...

Next to Canada, we're the most diverse society on earth....

What if? What if? There's been no armed robberies carried out by women in niqabs, though there's been many by guys wearing hoodies. Maybe we should ban all hoodies? After all, LOTS of Australians wear them and obscure their faces with them...

The society I live in shouldn't be driven by the religious bigots like Fred Nile and his ilk. I don't think it's at all justifiable to restrict people's freedom by saying 'well that country over there does it worse.'

[pnwmom]

19. Women cause car accidents every day.

And women should be just as identifiable as men when they do.

It doesn't matter how few the numbers in veils are. To someone who is hit by the rare woman driver in a veil, it doesn't matter a bit that there are few of them.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Many men aren't identifiable. They obscure their faces with beards and hoodies...

Apparently it's only women in veils that are the issue, though. I wonder why?

[pnwmom]

27. A beard is a body part, like head hair. It's not a mask. And a hoodie, if it's

covering the face, should be pulled back to allow identification.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. But beards can hinder identification...

If a guy grows a beard, there's great difficulty in verifying his identification if the license photo is a clean-shaven one....

[pnwmom]

32. No more than if a woman changes her hairstyle.

Growing a beard doesn't obscure nearly as much as a face veil with only slits for the eyes.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Only if yr blind as a fucking bat. A hairstyle doesn't cover yr facial features...

btw, you keep on claiming that a niqab obscures women's vision. As women are allowed to drive in them here in Australia, that's clearly not the case at all...

[pnwmom]

41. A beard IS a facial feature. And it doesn't cover the nose,

the eyebrows, the forehead, or the mouth.

Unlike a full face veil that allows only the eyes to be seen -- often through netting or lace.

Logically, the fact that women are allowed to drive in face coverings doesn't prove that none of them obscure women's vision. Another logical possibility is that whoever has written driving regulations doesn't realize that they can obscure vision.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. It obscures the cheekbones and jaw, and that's part of the way faces are identifiable...

Yeah, if women are allowed to drive in a niqab here, it means they're not obscuring their vision while driving...

[Mimosa]

61. Violet, You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

I happened to have worn hijab and niqab, as well as abaya and burqa, long enough to have gained an understanding of what wearing such garments entails. Both hijab and niqab actually interfere with vision and hearing to a degree. Hijab can obscure peripheral vision, depending on how it's worn. Niqab definitely interferes with vision and hearing. Try wearing with abaya and the outfit is dangerous to ones own safety. It's easy to trip wearing an abya or buqa at the proper length. :7

If someone is totally dedicated to maintaining the dated misogynist theocratic customs and the absurd outfits males in primitive tribal cultures wish to impose upon females, perhaps such females ought to remain in countries which suit their preferences, such as Saudi Arabia, and the stans. :7

[Violet_Crumble]

63. How does wearing hijab affect vision and hearing?

I can't see how that could do that anymore than wearing a beanie would affect mine, which it doesn't...

I'm curious. This thread isn't about banning the wearing of garments, it's about lifting face covering when requested by police for ID purposes. But you say women who wish to dress like that should remain in countries like Saudi Arabia, but what about women who are Australian citizens, and sometimes are even born here?

[Mimosa]

64. The hijab and niqab cover the ears.

The kind of materials these head 'scarves' are made of are not as thin as silk, for instance. Most of the garments are rayon. The way the scarves are tied and fastened are firmly over the ears. Niqab is much worse than hijab, which can be quite casual and easier to wear. :)

Violet Crumble, many women, Muslim and non-Muslim, believe the wearing of such garments symbolise religious oppression. I think many of us are uncomfortable with the symbolism. They should be free to wear whatever they want, but not to fully conceal faces in public. BTW, cities and states (like Louisiana and New Orleans) which celebrate 'Carnival' legally allow complete facial masking only during parades. And on Mardi Gras day. ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

66. So does my beanie, and it's thick...

Nice and toasty warm in winter though :)

Yeah, I'm also uncomfortable with the symbolism of the burqa, and do associate it with the Taliban's abuse of women. I don't have any problems with the sort of hijab one of my friends used to wear, as I have plenty of bad hair days and she used to brag that she had none, and it didn't affect her hearing or sight.

That's interesting what you said about Louisiana and New Orleans. I don't have a problem with anything like that as long as the law isn't focusing solely on Islamic clothing and is a blanket rule against all face covering...

[MADem]

100. You can take it off at will if you can't hear what's going on, though.

And a beanie doesn't obscure your vision unless you are wearing it wrong.

If someone wearing the niqab "can" take it off at will to hear what's going on, they can take it off for purposes of identification. Of course, that kind of conduct interferes with the misogynistic purpose of the garment, which is to keep women hidden and in their place while purporting to be a display of "devoutness" by the wearer.

[MADem]

49. I disagree. A hairstyle can completely change a person's look.

Look at Buddy Cianci when he wore his wig, and when he dumped it.

You'd never know the guy.

[MADem]

45. Not according to the article you aren't. Did you read it?

We're not talking about representation, we're talking sheer numbers:

A vigorous debate that the proposal has triggered reflects the cultural clashes being ignited by the growing influx of Muslim immigrants and the unease that visible symbols of Islam are causing in predominantly white Christian Australia since 1973 when the government relaxed its immigration policy.

Even with an "influx," according to the article, Australia is still predominantly WHITE and CHRISTIAN.

But hey, let's not trust the article, let's go to the stats (they're Wiki, but lifted from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the CIA World Fact Book):

Christianity is the predominant faith of Australia. According to the 2006 census, the largest religious denomination is Roman Catholicism, of which 25.8% of the population claimed affiliation. The next largest is the Anglican faith, at 18.7%. Members of other Christian denominations accounted for 19.4% of the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia
Contemporary demographics

The 2001 Australian census results indicate that many Australians claim some European heritage: English 37%, Irish 11%, Italian 5%, German 4.3%, Scottish 3%, Greek 2%, Dutch 1.5%, Polish 0.9%. Australians of some non-European origin form a significant but still relatively small part of the population: Chinese 3.2%, Indian 0.9%, Lebanese 0.9%, Vietnamese 0.9%. About 2.2% identified themselves as Indigenous Australians. 39% of the population gave their ancestry as "Australian". The Australian census does not classify people according to race, only ethnic ancestry. (Note that subjects were permitted to select more than one answer for this census question.)<[br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy



I'm not arguing that Australia is more diverse than it was when it had a White Australia policy, but they only changed the law in 73. Rome wasn't built in a day, and a lot of the diversity is WHITE diversity, according to the figures cited. And when you add up all those Catholics and Anglicans and "other" Christians, Australia has a shitload of Christians.

I also question the assertion that Canada is the 'most diverse' country. In fact, I find that very hard to believe. I mean, if you have one person residing in the country from a particular ethnicity, does that mean you can "check the box?" If that's the criteria, I'm not buying it. A LOT of your post-73 influx came from Europe, specifically WHITE Europe.

As far as saying "There have been no robberies by women in niqabs, so there will be no robberies by women in niqabs" that's kind of like saying, in 1991, that no one has flown a plane into the World Trade Center, ergo no one will fly a plane into the WTC. Al Qaida operatives have often used the "dress as a woman" trick to get out of a hotspot.

And as for the "hoodies" argument, you're mixing yourself up here. My understanding of the law isn't that the women are not allowed to wear the facial covering, they simply have to lift it when asked by competent authority or for purposes of identification, like, say, in that auto accident we were talking about, or if they get stopped by a cop. Are you seriously telling me that if a policeman in Australia told some punk to remove his little hoodie-hood (or his Mexican Wrestling Mask, for that matter), that the kid could or would say "I know my rights and I refuse to comply?"

I mean, come on.

I think you never have unity when segments of your society hold themselves apart to a point where living in the society becomes problematic. It's one thing to have cultural ties and talismans, but when you attract more attention wearing a "costume" than you would if you simply wore a modified hijab like modern religious women do in Turkey and elsewhere, it's almost like you're pleading to be noticed, harrassed, or given attention. It's the choice of people if they want that sort of attention, but it's also the duty of the police, courts, and other competent authority to know who the hell they are dealing with when an issue arises.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. The article's wrong then...

Both it and you make out that we're a nation of mainly white Christians of faith. Even the ABS stuff doesn't provide a picture of things. Australia isn't a place where organised religion plays any sort of big role, and the number of church goers are pretty low. I'm sure there's plenty of people like me, who aren't believers, don't go to church unless it's for hatches, matches and dispatches, but still put down their religion as one of the Christian ones coz that's what I was christened as.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance (We're in 30th spot, far below the US, and only 16% attend church on a regular basis)

Not that I'd know anything about immigration to my own country, but I think you'll find that very large numbers of Asian, Indian, and Chinese migrated here after the 1970's. There's also a substantial Afghan population. While there's also a lot of immigration from the UK and New Zealand. to try to claim the country isn't a multicultural one is doing it a disservice.


I think you never have unity when segments of your society hold themselves apart to a point where living in the society becomes problematic.

There's been waves of migration here that caused problems from the talkback radio crowd who believe in all the assimilate or perish sort of stuff, but what's tended to happen is that while the first generation stands out and finds it harder, following generations find it easier. My ancestors were unwilling immigrants and they sure as hell didn't fit in to the local customs, but that's okay cause genocide and mass slaughters took care of that particular problem...

I've got a question for you. Which law would you prefer - a law that specifically states that women wearing any Islamic face covering must remove it for the police? Or a law that says that anyone wearing anything obscuring their face is obligated to remove it when asked by the police?

[MADem]

96. So the Australia Bureau of Statistics are a buncha fibbers, then?

OK....

I find it interesting that you don't allow people to self-define their faith. Not all Christians 'need' a church to do their thing, these folks are rather like Muslims in that regard. Some people define "Christianity" as living a life consonant with the teachings of Jesus; i.e., don't be an asshole. Nothing about abortion or gay marriage, just "don't be an asshole."

I will answer your question--even though you didn't show me the same courtesy.

I have said in other parts of this thread that I prefer the SECOND option, that ANYONE who covers their face for ANY reason must remove the covering if asked by "competent authority" for purposes of making a positive identification. Competent authority would include someone like a bank teller, if someone in a beekeeper's suit wanted to cash a check--not just a police officer at a traffic stop. Competent authority would include a security guard or doorman at a concierge apartment building, to ensure that Missus Tenthead who lives in 4B is actually Missus Tenthead, and not some burglar in disguise.

Now, if the proposed law is written in a different fashion and singles out only veiled Muslim women (I haven't read the full text so I don't know) and not just anyone of any gender wearing a veil or facial covering, here's YOUR chance--get on the ball, start calling the people responsible for voting on this bill, and propose a change that encompasses everyone, from the Mexican Wrestling Mask wearer, to Mister Big Hoodie, and that guy dressed as The Invisible Man....oh, and the Michael 'I Have No Nose' Jackson impersonator with the surgical mask, too.

You've got till August, so use your time wisely.

Frankly, when someone does not want to be noticed, which was the initial purpose behind hijab and niqab in the first place (to help women retain their modesty and not be the object of lust or curiosity from hostile unrelated males), the best way to not be noticed is to melt into one's surroundings. Strutting down the beach, street, or parkway in Australia or most other predominantly western and Christian (even if they're lazy Christians) cultures in outrageous, full-bore hijab/niqab is BEGGING for attention. It's attention-SEEKING behavior, a plea for people to look at them, notice them, even stare at them. You can get the same body coverage with a big overblown turtleneck-tunic, a hat, and trousers, and you'll be less of a spectacle, too. Aging film stars know how to do it, you'd think these supposedly devout people would go back to the IDEA and PURPOSE behind the costuming, rather than calling attention to themselves with what is plainly an attention-getting, In-your-face, Look At MEEEE getup.

Mind you, I am not advocating preventing people from wearing whatever the hell they want, but they shouldn't be surprised when they dress unusually and get attention because of it.

[Violet_Crumble]

103. No, I most definately didn't say that at all..

In fact, I very clearly said what the problem was in relying on the census answers. Religion isn't big here, and not nearly as much so as in the US. I don't know why yr so absolutely resistant to that idea, but that's how it is...

[MADem]

105. Well, the article relied on ABS, so.... whatever. NT

[Lasher]

47. Australia burka armed robbery sparks ban debate

7 May 2010

An armed robbery allegedly carried out by a man wearing a burka has sparked a row in Australia on whether the full-face Islamic veil should be banned.

<snip>

Mr Bernardi, senator for South Australia, made his comments after a man was held up at gunpoint in a car park in Sydney on Wednesday and robbed of a bag of cash.

The victim said his attacker had been a man wearing sunglasses and a burka, meaning he could not be identified.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8667330.stm

Man wearing niqab robs Otttawa bank

1 January 2011

A niqab-wearing robber suspected of a string of bank robberies carried out perhaps his fourth successful heist in Ottawa on Thursday.

Police in the Canadian capital say the man, wearing a robe and a dark blue niqab covering his mouth and nose, entered the bank around noon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12101647

After robbery, Muslim-owned shop bans customers wearing veil

April 28, 2009

A Muslim-owned jewellery shop has decided to ban customers wearing veils after being targeted by robbers disguised as Islamic women.

Everyone entering ATAA Jewellers in Glasgow must reveal their faces under planned new rules to protect staff from further attacks.

The store owners decided to act after two Asian men wearing traditional Muslim women’s clothes – including niqab veils – made away with thousands of pounds worth of jewellery earlier this month.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/23428/muslim-veils-banned

[cali]

53. And you don't know much about the U.S. Doesn't stop you from

offering your opinion about it.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I know more than you make out I do. And when I don't I'm happy to admit it n/t

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

13. What does the small number of women have to do with it?

If you happen to be a driver who gets involved in an accident with one of these women, it won't matter that there aren't many of them. It will only matter that one of them hit you, and that you need to be sure that the driver's license you're looking at actually belongs to the driver of the car. That is why we have photos on licenses in the first place. There is no reason to give Muslim women a special exception. If this is so important to them, they don't have to drive. That's how Saudi Arabia solves the problem.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Because of the obsessive focus by some on them...

Uh-huh. So show me the bit of Australian law that says a driver in an accident must be able to see the other drivers license and do a face check for identity purposes. There's no such bit of law.

Muslim women have every bit as much right to drive as I do, and that's not going to change. I hope you realise that this law is still to be voted on and only applies to one Australian state. Maybe you should start lobbying to ban drivers wearing hoodies, as there's far more of them in the population?

[pnwmom]

25. Do hoodies cover faces in Australia? If so, they should be included in the law.

If Australians oppose the law, fine -- who cares.

But if someone proposes it HERE, or if it's already in place, I would support it. Where I live, it isn't that unusual to see a woman in a niqab anymore. If we don't have this law already, we should.

[MADem]

51. Nicely argued. +1 nt

[JCMach1]

7. Somehow I doubt police would be happy if I wore a Mexican wrestling mask either

No matter how big a fan I was, I should have to take it off.

Since Niqab and variants are cultural affectations... sorry but it should come off.

[MADem]

10. Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck--that struck my funnybone! nt

[pnwmom]

14. I agree, they aren't religiously required. But even if they were,

driving a car isn't a civil right guaranteed by the constitution. If a face veil obstructs vision (which many of them do) or prevents others from identifying the driver (which they all do), the state has the right to regulate them.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. You do realise this is in Australia, not the US. I doubt you've even read our Constitution...

Our laws already state that people aren't to obscure their vision when driving. Also, how do you know that vision is obscured by niqabs? If women are wearing them when driving and aren't being charged with obstructing their vision, then there's no problems in that regard...

[pnwmom]

34. I actually once had a chance to try one on a long time ago.

Someone I knew had traveled to S.A. with her husband and had brought one home. It was very hard to walk in without tripping and it definitely affected my vision.

That said, I know there are different versions and some would be worse than others.

You're right, I haven't read your Constitution. I've been speaking in general terms -- not with regard to Australian law. I just said that I think the proposed law is a matter of common sense. I have no idea how it would fit with your Constitution.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I've done the same thing myself...

Not worn any niqab or burqa or anything, but talked in Australian terms in some threads about things in the US, so I understand how easy it is to do. Our Constitution is very different to yrs, and is more an administrative document on how government works. It's very dry and boring stuff to read.

btw, you and I seem to agree that we'd support a law to make it so police can make someone take any covering off their face for ID purposes. I'm fine with it if it isn't targetting Muslims specifically, that's all..

[pnwmom]

46. I just saw a picture of a hoodie that covers the face.

I didn't even know such a thing exists -- I've never seen one in public.

So yes, I wouldn't AT ALL be targeting the person because of the Muslim aspect.

But I was hit by a woman who turned out have expired insurance, which I discovered after I got home and called the number she had given me. What if I had had to take her to small claims court -- but couldn't even identify her? I don't see that working out very well.

:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Yeah, they're quite popular here, especially in winter...

Gotta head off and have dinner now, so talk at ya later :)

[Lasher]

52. Do they look something like this?

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. Can you post a link?

The essential thing about a hoodie being, you know, the hood. It's not a 'maskie'.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Here's one I found in just a few seconds.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/03/hoodie.comment

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. It's the sweatshirt obscuring the face, not the hoodie

and yes, the police should have the right to demand they show their face if they're behaving like that after a traffic accident.

[MADem]

97. That little putz is wearing a blue Nike-type shirt OVER a hooded sweatshirt.

It ain't the hoodie that is doing it, it's the combo of the hoodie and the overshirt, plus, the kid is putting his chin under the overshirt. If he doesn't move carefully, his chin will pop out.

You can do the same thing with any shirt and hat combo. Put on a big baseball hat. Pull it down over your eyes. Take your oversized tee shirt and pull it over your nose and tuck the collar under your hat--badabing, you're covered. You can also do this like Truman Capote used to, as he contemplated his balding pate and sagging chin--golf hat and a silk scarf -- up to his nose, sometimes.

Some thugs like the hoodie and bandanna look. Go on and outlaw that too, I say, or require people to unveil/take off that hat and show your face every time you get behind the wheel or go into a business establishment. Same deal with the "baclava look" in weather that is not below freezing.

[JCMach1]

56. Peripheral vision is limited by these things...

Many ladies here in UAE simply won't do this if they have to drive.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. I can't stand having my vision obstructed when I drive...

I got rid of one of my fave pairs of sunnies because they were affecting my peripheral vision when I drove...

When it comes to the niqab, I know I couldn't stand wearing one, especially in the heat...

[JCMach1]

60. Culturally here it is disappearing... ironically, fundamentalists outside of Arabia are the ones

who push this now so damn hard.

... especially Egyptians, Pakistanis, Sudanese and other Africans.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. I won't be sad to see it vanish totally...

I always connect it with pictures I saw of women in Afghanistan when the Taliban were in control....

[LetTimmySmoke]

50. Sometimes people need to see your face for public safety.

If you don't like it, you can always leave.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Leave where and go where? n/t

[MH1]

83. any of the myriad places where it's accepted for women to hide their faces

[Violet_Crumble]

102. No woman in Australia needs to go anywhere...

It's wrong to tell women to leave and go somewhere else, especially to assume that women affected aren't Australians...

[Quantess]

68. Good.

Who is being more culturally insensitive? Muslims who demand that women cover their faces in a country that overwhelmingly doesn't... or the Australian government who would ask the same of anyone in similar circumstances?

Maybe they also need to pass a law that you can't cover your face while operating a motor vehicle.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. This isn't the Australian government. It's a state government n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

77. I found the info on the proposed bill and some aspects of it concern me...

The text isn't available online, but information about the bill is here:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/NSWBills.nsf/1d436d3c74a9e047ca256e690001d75b/e4056a30b3319309ca2578860029c6ee?OpenDocument

Without seeing the text it's hard to know much, but that Fred Nile introduced that bill is a cause for concern, due to his anti-Muslim stance. For those of you who've never heard of him, he's a homegrown religious extremist type, who hates gays and Muslims and women and believes in *Christian Values*. Much like some of his bretheren on the US Right, he also believes in looking at porn on his office computer. What a hypocritical wanker...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Nile

I'm hoping that if the bill is written in a way that makes it clear it's aimed at Muslims solely, then it will be voted down. Even the NSW Liberals aren't extremists like Fred Nile is...

[treestar]

84. Exactly - it should be written neutrally

Maybe it is.

Just that anyone who is stopped must show their ID and face.

[Mimosa]

85. Picture of full niqab & abaya

You gals wouldn't believe how easy it is to trip and fall wearing these things. :7

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT85K5Hniyn1AILMFhqHLphhjgdvDBA1_KRxFbag3YF6TMANDr

[pnwmom]

86. And we probably can't imagine how steaming hot.

And with gloves no less!

[Quantess]

87. Those things have got to go.

What century is this again?

[Romulox]

88. Wearing a mask in public is illegal in most places, around the world.

An exception is made for certain cultural garments, but that privilege doesn't afford the right to anonymously drive, bank, or conduct other business.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. Less than you might think

People may not do business with you etc, but it is rarely illegal. By way of example, I wear a full face motorcycle helmet which completely hides my face. Perfectly legal and is the recommended option. I take it off when I go into a 7-11 or other business not because it is illegal, but because it frightens or makes the clerks feel uncomfortable.

[Shagbark Hickory]

91. They've got hateful, anit-Msulim Rightwingers there too. Loads of them.

Lets make no mistake about it, This kind of legislation is like border fences, banning mosques and putting laws on the books to prevent Shariah law and some of the SSM laws we've seen in the past. It's meant to rally a certain group of voters.

[WatsonT]

107. Do you think police have no need to identify people by their appearance?

They are often told to look for perps based on vague physical descriptions.

If they have to identify people by appearance how is a completely covered face going to help?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

104. Norms of Civil Society > Values of Your Imaginary Friend

Enough!

I don't care if you are a Christian, Muslim, Scientologist or Buddhist. Society should never submit to whims of those with supernatural delusions.

[WatsonT]

106. Seems reasonable

police often need to identify people.

And it's hard to say who this person is:

[etherealtruth]

110. Yeah ....

... it pretty much simply makes sense.