Banning the Burqa?

[Tiberius]

Everywhere? NOT MY PERSONAL justifications Tibby...it is LAW here. Or just in places of commerce? And just what is this persons "version" of a "burqa"? As I have stated...Full face coverings are not acceptable in places of commerce or Government organisations and the fact that a police officer asks you to remove your FULL FACE COVERING is not something that should bow to a select few based on 'religious reasons'

Fair enough, they were not your personal justifications. What are your personal justifications? Please don't say "it's the LAW", because that is not a justification for the law itself. I want to know your actual justification for why the burka should be banned. The issue of a police officer asking you to remove your full face covering is another matter; if there is reason to suspect the person, and facial identification is required, then it should be allowed. This is not the same thing as banning the burka everywhere, or in select places. There is no reasonable justification for banning it in banks or other commercial buildings.

Hair splitting Tiberius....
Again we ARE talking about places of commerce. And what are you trying to say?? Helmets are part of the standard acceptable and lwful PPE equipment for motocycle riding...what value of PPE does a bit of fabric give?

No, it's not hair splitting. My point was, if the reasons for banning the burka are the same as banning helmets, then banning the burka everywhere should mean helmets are banned everywhere as well. This is of course absurd, and my underlying point was that there are other reasons (Islamophobia) for wanting the burka banned.

Tell that to the commercial banking staff who have been threatened by the wearing of such clothing Tiberius.

This is more a failing of the staff than the person wearing the burka. There is no rational reason to be threatened by a person wearing a burka, or a helmet, or skiing goggles, etc. There is only a rational reason to be threatened if the person themselves is being threatening. Someone wearing clothing is not a valid reason to be threatened by them. Sorry, it just isn't.

I am thinking you are naive in this regard....it is NOT ridiculous and is common practice here in Australia. Only those of "Islamic proclivities" are exempt and I find this rather unfair since I HAVE to remove my motorcycle helmet to just pay for the fuel I just put into my tank! You seem to forget Tiberius that Australia "IS a prison island" (thank you UK) and if you are wearing a covering over your face you 'must be a criminal' (thank you again UK) as those who do not wear a covering are just your average immigrant and can be disregarded as a threat.

I'm not entirely sure whether you disagree with me or not. I'm arguing that the practice is ridiculous; you should be able to wear a helmet to pay for fuel, just as a Muslim should be able to wear a burka. The attitude "covering your face means you are a criminal" is not good, nor is it based on rational thought. However, if you do actually disagree with me, then please state your reasons why. Being common practice does not negate its ridiculousness, nor is it a valid argument for the continuation of the practice. I don't want to know what currently goes one; I want to know why you support it.

Your face is EVERYTHING here...your identity and validity depends on you being Facially identified.

It shouldn't, which is my point.

Why?? Mine aren't. Religion deserves NO respect...tolerance yes, respect no. I have no issue with people wanting to cover themselves from head to toe with fabric, it just makes me wonder what they are trying to hide. BUT, if full face coverings are banned for the majority then religion can go take a hike if they want to function in Australian society and there's an end to it.

Your customs should be respected, just as anyone's should be. Obviously there are exceptions, there always are, but for the most part, people's customs are their own, and shouldn't have to be torn apart. Your attitude of "tolerance yes, respect no" doesn't conform with your final demand that the religious can "go take a hike" if their clothing is banned. That isn't at all tolerant.

You mean customs like female circumcision?

No. I'm not even sure why that is relevant in this conversation. We are talking about clothing.