world

Australian law proposal: Muslims must remove veils

57 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

I thought this article was about banning the veils which is something I disagree with in principle. It it was abused though, I would agree with it.

Reasoning - Australia is supposed to be multi-cultural. But taking advantage of this is not fair.

If it is just removing the veil for ID, I think it is fair. The local laws are not discrimatory in this regard.

But I understand their concern. If time etc allows for it, perhaps they could request a female officer to do this?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I can understand the idea of this law, however, I also believe that there are other, maybe, less "intrusive" ways such as fingerprints or retinal scans. I know the fingerprinting device technology exists already.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@ namabiru4me

I though about fingerprints but I'm guessing they would need them on record first to make the ID later. Could start adding them to new driver's licences though.

Using the number plate for ID won't work if the driver is a car thief. Not probable but possible. Car theft is not rare in Australia.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

They should be made to remove them when entering banks gas stations and other places frequently robbed for security reasons. You cannot enter a bank wearing a full face helmet for the same reason so this veil hijab nijab or what ever they are called should be the same. Identification and security should take preferrence over religous crap.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

One isolated incident. Lets make a law! Talk about knee-jerk. Surely everyone has something better to worry about? Do they actually think perfection and utopia can be achieved with one law for each isolated incident at a time?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

What say you there? .....I thought.......I understand the concern???? less intrusive????? What are yous just pushing for a fight or what? Obviously for identification purposes with the police and law, removing a veil, which isnt banned, is obviously......'common sense'. Maybe you could say common sense to Australians. But yous 2 lot of wording just is waiting to point the finger-why? Mind I dont really like the Australian police either.

You had me have hollywood visions of a house being robbed, and the robbers having their hoods on, but they get caught at the door by the owners coming home. And in complete hollywood style the robbers refuse to take off their head covering, cause they state it is their robbers religion to not remove their head covering. hahahaha. And in pure hollywood style the owners whacks the robbers with the handy baeball bat, head covering and all, and, there is Tomand jerry birds swimming round the robbers head, so they remove their head covering, and shock and horror the owners learn it is their son, and his dog under the other hood, cause they wanted some money for pizza; cause we all know thats how hollywood works. LOL thanks for them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Reformed Basher: "But I understand their concern. If time etc allows for it, perhaps they could request a female officer to do this?"

For once I agree with you. They should provide a room just off of customs or places that need to an ID check and a woman should be present to provide it. There's no reason it cannot be done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the police have resonable cause that the women had committed a crime or was in the process, then fair enough for identification purposes. If they do it out of harassment, then the officers concerned should face jail.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

right smith-there's a customs room right next to the road where you pull the car over.....now if the person in question decides to go down to the police quarters, i too would recommend asking for a woman-if youre a woman-it's hard to tell with the police just how straight they are. But dont go calling them names or swearing at em, because thatll definitely get you some bad marks, but I reckon you could get a way with saying they smell like brekky without them catching on too quickly......

1 ( +1 / -0 )

good.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

illsayitAug. 19, 2011 - 01:06PM JST

right smith-there's a customs room right next to the road where you pull the car over.

Oh, come on. If you pull over a woman driving a car in a veil, and she hands you a driver's license and the name on it matches the registration, and the woman matches the height and weight on the driver's license as far as you can tell, and she can tell you her own birthdate and other information on the license, isn't that enough? And if its not we could get all manner of stupid and suspicious and imagine that if we did see her face, she might actually be the identical twin sister or some other crazy crap straight out of a stupid cop show. No. You got all that other info, then just write up the ticket, have her sign and move on.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Not a problem in England (at least when I was living there). All the cops want is the number plate of the car. Doesn't matter who's driving; the speeding ticket goes to the registered owner regardless.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes. you gotit wrong. you dont know nothing about getting identified to get a passport when youre Australian do ya? If you think flipping a plastic card is called indentification youre learning the wrong type of english lingo, Id say. Its not as if theyre asking to flip your pants and identify your private parts, nor your fingerprints which are even more private Id guess, since god seems to be the only one with the total rundown on those stats.. And your argument beside all that has a lot of room for discrepency. I mean for instance, what if the dude had been speeding for the last month, their weight would surely not match. Or unless your a real dumb criminal, and you carried a license that you hadnt bothered to memorize, for example......nananananaNAH, youve got it wrong, identification even for Australians aint that easy -mate.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Penalties for those who refuse ( to remove the veil ) would include a year in prison"

Could we get the Muslim community to pay for that?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

If they want to be treated like a Muslim, they should go and live in a Muslim country.

I hate any religion that expects special treatment just because they have medieval customs.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@smithinjapan

For once I agree with you.

Well thanks. But I'm just here to offer an opinion and not to score points. No offence mind you.

Reading the local paper about what really happened to that poor girl who got mauled - I could not have been more wrong. I feel ashamed for blaming her parents even a little.

Speaking of "score", I see one of my comments above is getting negative reviews...

Could it be that my fellow Australians are not happy with me talking about crime here? It's a lot worse than Japan. Mind you being in the wrong place at the wrong time can happen to anyone, anywhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@tokyokawasaki

If they want to be treated like a Muslim, they should go and live in a Muslim country.

I hate any religion that expects special treatment just because they have medieval customs.

Think most muslims are moderates. Me, I'm not "religous" but very "medieval" in my beliefs.

Although I don't always agree with them, I have a certain respect for muslims or anybody else who stands up for what they believe in, as long as it does not involve forcing their beliefs on others. I'm aware of some muslims doing it but should we be doing the same?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

tokyokawasakiAug. 19, 2011 - 02:10PM JST

If they want to be treated like a Muslim, they should go and live in a Muslim country.

Odd statement, since no one is really asking for special treatment, or anything. They just went there expecting tolerance. No Muslim or immigrant mentioned in this article is asking for a new law. It is non-Muslim Aussies asking for a new law against the Muslims.

I should think that if freedom and tolerance are now abhorrent to Australians, they can either do the leaving or they can change their proclamations on freedom and tolerance

I hate any religion that expects special treatment just because they have medieval customs.

Again, not asking for special treatment, just went there expecting tolerance. And what is so medieval about covering one's face? There is no part of the human body that covering can be called "medieval" as you mean it, like "barbaric". Make-up is also a face covering and can make it very difficult or impossible to identify someone. Hairstyles can do this also. That is why a driver's license comes with more than just a picture.

What you have posted is really just the same old hate that placed on the Irish, the Jews and the Italians in the past as they immigrated to other places. Its as thin, lame and vile today as it ever was.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Oracle - yes they are. They expect to get away with normal ID procedures or at least be given somewhere private to be ID's.

Would I get away with that whilst wearing my crash helmet? Hence they want special treatment.

What's "medieval"? have you read the bible or the koran? People actual still believe that outdated, oppressive, aggressive and full of lies crap? Come on it is 2011

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What's "medieval"? have you read the bible or the koran? People actual still believe that outdated, oppressive, aggressive and full of lies crap? Come on it is 2011

Hah. That's funny. Do you think those of us that read it are all the same? If that's the case, I have news for you. That kind of thought is outdated. Come on, it's 2011.

Even if it's not our belief, it is something precious to someone else. If the removal of the veils is necessary, I agree that it should be done in a respectful manner.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Do you think those of us that read it are all the same.

As an atheist - Yes I do.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I wonder if the same rule applies to the white 'homeboys' who cruise the streets in their wannabe gansta jackets??

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"I can't see why anyone should object, so long as police officers do use this for harassment".

Whoo Patrick, fix this now or be hit by -1000 on the thumb thing!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Common sense prevailing with this law.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Only 2000 people in the entirety of Australia wear veils based on religious principles. 2000. Out of 23 million people total.

Is this something that really warrants legislation?

http://www.cairchicago.org/2011/07/20/charting-islamophobia-banning-the-niqab/

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The headline is misleading. They don´t want to ban the sack-over-the-face (as they should, and as modern islamic countries do); all they ask is to show the face for ID verification. Which really is a no-brainer. Or does a black sack now suffice as an identification.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Patrick Smash:

" Special rooms will be set up where women can wait for a female officer if they will not show their face to men. That is already enough of a compromise. "

Compromise? That in itself is already caving in to the islamists and their bizarre claim that the face is a sexual organ, which must not be shown to men, lest they lose control. This whole premise in itself is so insulting to men, to muslim men in particular, and to the whole concept of modernity, that it should be stopped right at the start. Alas, Western societies keep caving, like here. "Special room" to see a female face, good grief.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Human target:

" Only 2000 people in the entirety of Australia wear veils based on religious principles. 2000. Out of 23 million people total. Is this something that really warrants legislation? "

Yes. If they insist that the existing law does not apply to them, then the law should be clarified that it does apply to them. And 2000 people refusing to ID themselves is bad enough.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I have as an experiment just put on a mask that concealed the whole of my face except for the eyes, Ithen sat in my car. My vision to the left and right became impaired. I could look straight ahead but had no clear vision of my wing mirrors. It was not quite as bad as tunnel vision but enough to impair safety skills. I would think that viels concealing the face may prohibit admittance to banks and post offices as would other concealments ie, crash helmets, barraclavers, facemasks. All respects to peoples tenets and customs but for security and id purposes it is logical that a request to briefly remove the item should not be seen as offensive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So a woman commits a heinous crime. Then she walks around town hidden in a veil, except for her eyes. She could really be a man under there for all we know. One of those soft fatty tubby blokes. Whatever is the case, I feel anyone should show their face to any peace officer or authority at any time. To hell with a room. If you are looking for someone dangerous who has time for waiting. Rip that crap off their head. The safety of a society and its citizens is far more important than religious beliefs. Pretty soon every society will have to change its core values because of religion. because of religion, if it is known that you don't believe in Jesus in many places in the states you won't get a job.(I am American by the way and you can talk to many who do the hiring, at their homes in private and hear this kind of talk) They won't say that is why but there will be other reasons for being turned away. Practice your religion at home. Obey the laws of the state. Show your face. If a male cop or security at an important public place sees your face...your problem. Get a new religion or a new face.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

LOL. Human target links to CAIR of all sources.This court case is in Australia, not the US. And CAIR has had several of their 'officials' indicted. Not the most trustworthy source.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As far as I know, the Quran says nothing about wearing a Burqa. Moslems in some countries wear them and those in others - Tunisia, Turkey, and several others don't. It seems to come down to people's interpretations of the Quran.

In any case, surely a religion is concerned with spiritual matters. It should go beyond appearance, shouldn't it?

There is a practical side to this. Wearing a mask introduces the problem of identification, both in the case of the wearer being the person who commits a crime and where she is the victim.

Christina also raises a good point about visibility being impaired when driving.

As far as what a person believes is concerned, it is a personal thing. But covering the face is only not a personal thing. It concerns other people too.

Surely, religion is about one's personal relationship with God and not the opinion or interpretation of another human being, whether that person is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, Ayatollah, Imam or whatever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tolerance is a two-way street.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

what's the problem ?

http://images.ibsys.com/2003/0526/2227925.jpg

can't identify the lady(?) in the veil ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Safety first!-Drop the veil Or go to Jail-Why the muslims think They are above the law and at every slight to them they scream for blood (and sadly at times,suceed)! With rights come responsibilaty,on ALL sides.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Ban them like in France. IF it was an Australian or American girl in the middle east & they said you can't wear a short skirt, id tell them to follow their customs there & Don't wear them. I do agree with if your in a country you follow their customs & Laws. (not changing religion OR who you are) just don't demand your customs be accepted when they don't/won't allow stuff in you country.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So what about guys who wear hoodies that are just a little too baggy? Or dark shades?

Are we going to outlaw bangs next? Thick eyebrows? Large mustaches? Maybe we should install cameras where you must look directly into them for a snapshot every time you enter a Starbucks.

Maybe Australia should take France's lead and ban muslim veils but not christian veils? I'm sure this will foster understanding among the religions.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh, and Brietbart, since you're such a stickler about sources, here is the number of Muslim women in France that wear the Burqa.... as told by French Domestic Intelligence

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/world/europe/01france.html?_r=2

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Back on topic please. The subject is Australia, not France.

The New South Wales state government said Friday that under the law, police would be able to require anyone to remove a face covering for identification purposes—including a burqa, niqab, helmet or mask.

Being against such an obviously logical measure is simply intolerance of common sense.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

BreitbartVictorious: Tolerance is a two-way street.

You're a bit behind on the times. The newest and strongest form of tolerance is tolerating the intolerance of others. Get with the program.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

SuperLib,

Do you really expect that white, Christian police officers will ask white men on motorcycles to remove their helmets for identification purposes? Or nuns to remove their veils? Do you really believe this will not be used as a flagrant means to discriminate against a minority?

You're leaning on the same logic conservatives used to justify that ridiculous Arizona law about pulling over people who "look like" they are in the country illegally.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So what about guys who wear hoodies that are just a little too baggy? Or dark shades?

Are we going to outlaw bangs next? Thick eyebrows? Large mustaches? Maybe we should install cameras where you must look directly into them for a snapshot every time you enter a Starbucks.

Oh come on. Groucho Marx eyebrows hardly equates to the ubiquitous 'ninja' hoods worn by the stricter Muslim sects. Okay, conversely to that and by your logic if I am a snake handler in my religious beliefs (and yes they do exist) should I be allowed to bring venomous snakes onto the city bus or into a shopping center because they are part of my religious beliefs? If my religion or culture encompasses the practice of wearing a large knife or sword of some type, shouldn't I then be allowed to wear it around wherever I want? No, as these are safety issues. Well, so is the face veil thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe Australia should take France's lead and ban muslim veils but not christian veils?

I think this report is probably referring to the niqab or burka, which covers the face entirely except for the eyes. Veils cover the head but do not cover the face, so you can easily be identified with a veil intact (except for hair colour, possibly). If a police officer requires to see your face for ID purposes (e.g. to match your face to your ID photo) and you refuse, then you can't be surprised if you get taken down to the police station until they can identify you. The wearing of the niqab and burka is cultural; women are not instructed to do so in the Koran. I would expect anyone refusing to reveal their face to be treated the same - be it a burka or a Darth Vader mask - and be carted off to the police station for further identification procedures to take place.

Cultural sensitivity is good, of course - but there are limits. In London, Muslim women are threatened for not wearing headscarves ("Wear a headscarf or we will kill you")

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html

And some would seek to impose Sharia law on the streets ("Sharia law controlled zones in British cities"):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html

Australia hasn't reached this point yet. Does it want to?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tokyokawasakiAug. 19, 2011 - 02:50PM JST

Would I get away with that whilst wearing my crash helmet?

You tell me. Have you tried? Have you ever been asked to remove it?

What's "medieval"? have you read the bible or the koran? People actual still believe that outdated, oppressive, aggressive and full of lies crap? Come on it is 2011

None of what you wrote has to do with veils. None of it explains who veils are medieval, but hats and lipstick aren't. Would you force a Mennonite to wear blue-jeans? Would you force a Jew to eat pork? Would you yell at them "Get with the times!"?

Oracle - yes they are. They expect to get away with normal ID procedures or at least be given somewhere private to be ID's.

Proceedure? That's it? Look. Let me try this again. Its Australians asking for a new law to be made. A LAW dude.

Look, the instant veils become a problem, a REAL problem, I too will support making new laws. Until then, I am willing to take the risk of freedom. But if everytime some little thing comes up, your first reaction is to make a new law, eventually there won't be any freedom left.

An example is that when I was a kid, we went trick or treating all over the neighborhood for hours and hours. It was great! That was freedom! Now hours and areas are restricted. Why? A big reason was the story of someone putting razor blades in apples. Well, that is a problem, and something had to be done....or did it? Well, since it was a hoax, I guess not. But that freedom is still gone. So think before you go supporting a new law prompted by one incident please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, but when you live in a country, no matter WHERE. You HAVE to obey their LAWS. If the law says you need to be identified by removing any obstruction covering your face, you have to take it off. I'm all for religious ideals as long as a persons religious ideals don't violate basic human rights or the law of the land (within reason). Australia has the right to do this because its Australia, not Iran, SA, Maldives, Indonesia, Turkey etc...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HonestDictatorAug. 20, 2011 - 03:41AM JST. Sorry, but when you live in a country, no matter WHERE. You HAVE to obey their LAWS. If the law says you need to be identified by removing any obstruction covering your face, you have to take it off.

Who saids they are not obeying the laws? The Australian Constitution does not expressly protect freedom of speech or expression. However, in 1992, the High Court of Australia held that a right to freedom of expression, in so far as public and political discussion were concerned, was implied in the Constitution. This right was thought to be an essential requirement of democratic and representative government and thus implied into the Australian Constitution, which had established such a system of government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia is a big country with a small population sitting right under INDONESIA, yes, you know that country with the biggest MUSLIM population on the face of the earth, if you know any history of Indonesia and Australia, usually it is not so positive and my guess is most White, Christian Aussies are worried to be over run by Muslims immigrants, hence this kind of knee jerk reaction, but can we blame the Aussies??

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It seems to me there are too may Americans that think the US is just like Australia, or Australia is just like the US. It seems you are confused, and I would reiterate the point I made earlier about that it isnt easy for Australians who are born and bred there to get their ID approved. If that means that majority is white and Christian, it doesnt mean that Australians havent been pushed and shoved around by every other white, yellow, brown Christian that there is out there. (Do you realize how much so actually, Autralians have lost total freedom to even have understanding of a god, due to eveyone pushing 'their' god agenda) And all the different shades of any other religion as well. I also think the terming for the veil has become vague, and I do believe that the reference of this article is particularly to face covering. And if you think the law is a knee jerk reaction because you are used to that in the States, you have your countries mixed up, and I would guess it is a knee jerk reaction of yours to defend any other cultured people opposing the one that is in significant majority of history and/or numbers. That's AMerican.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Would Mohammedans agree to courts presided over by judges whose faces they could not see?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HumanTarget: Do you really expect that white, Christian police officers will ask white men on motorcycles to remove their helmets for identification purposes? Or nuns to remove their veils?

I expect that any police officer in any situation should have the right to ask that something be removed if it's preventing identification when someone is stopped. It's just common sense. I really don't care about what it is that's covering the person.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

About time that they did this, its good enough to require everyone else to remove things that hide their identities. Helmets, hats etc before entering a bank, service station, or when requested by the police. Why should one minority be above that. So its about time that everyone was made equal when it comes to this. No doubt though the bleeding heart softly softly types will complain as they always do

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If you are in Rome, you need to do what Roman do.

Why these people want to be treated differently? If they do not like it, then they need to go back where they truly belong. They do not like ANYTHING. Shut up and put up..

They cannot eat a piece of pie and ask for a piece of cake at the same time. Simple is that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HonestDictatorAug. 20, 2011 - 03:41AM JST

Sorry, but when you live in a country, no matter WHERE. You HAVE to obey their LAWS. If the law says you need to be identified by removing any obstruction covering your face, you have to take it off.

Sorry, but you seem to be ignoring the fact than no such law exists. They are talking about making it now, specifically to address veil wearing female Muslims, as if there was some sort of crime wave involving them rather than this one incident. This molehill is being given attention worthy of a mountain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this is still getting attention huh? It isnt specifically about addressing Muslim headware, it says any sort of headware. You seem to have a defense to anything containing talk about Muslims. The police have a role to play, or are paid for. I dont really like the police, yet this special treatment engaged for Muslims in the first pIace, when the headware was not removed and thus later identification wasnt able to be applied makes me feel belittled. Are the police favoring Muslims? That doesnt sound like very good police. Like I said, Im not a fan of the police anyway. But I dont think it is a molehills worth-for instance a lawyer in Australia just this week argued for introducing a law that would make it a crime to say anything about the Muslim religion that was considered negative. A lawyer!!! You would think he hasnt been listening to all the negative talk about Christians in Australia at all. If he had suggested 'any negative talk about religions' well it would make sense, but he only stated Muslims. Seriously?!?!? Have you heard how much rubbish comes out of Australia about Christians? Compare that to Muslim talk-hell my own family will give me the run down on what is wrong with Christians and will always have a sympathetic vibe for anyone of a Muslim country! This lawyer suggesting this week that there should be a law to protect Muslims in speech, was so lacking in context, it had me laughing! So as does your suggestion that this is a molehill of a topic; it isnt. It is important too. There isnt a crimewave against Muslims, there is crime and discrimination, if anything, against Australians(who arent obviously Muslim).

Having said all that, I could understand the point that makeup ought to be removed too when needing to make identification. And as for the England example of speeding and a bill being sent to the owners. The case in question wasnt just speeding right? And more importantly, Australia ISNT England. Learn that, and learn it well if you want to comment about Australia(nor is it New Zealand or Canada for that matter)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am with iIlsayit.

If you actually read the actual wording of the laws that are being passed and have been. They are talking about face-coverings which can be a helmet or a ski-mask, same way they talk about religious symbols that are being banned.

No where does it say only stuff from religion X or Y, they exclude all coverings and religious symbol.

The laws apply to ALL citizens/residents of those countries and not just a sub-group.

So sporting a big cross is just as bad as the star of David, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites