Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Burqa laws hit the Assembly

By johnboy 20 March 2012 77

burqa

Simon Corbell has announced the start of debate on burqa laws in the ACT:

The new laws, if passed, will also be used in situations under the road transport legislation when it is necessary to confirm a person?s identity, such as when a person is applying for a driver licence or having their photo taken for inclusion on their driver licence.

Mr Corbell reinforced that this legislation was not targeting any particular cultural group, and community groups had been consulted during the development stages of the legislation.

“The Government understands that this may be perceived as action to target a certain group in the community, but it is crucial to point out that cultural sensitivities have been taken into account when drafting the legislation,” Mr Corbell said.

“The laws include an option for a female with a head-covering to request that it only be removed in the presence of a female police officer in a private place in accordance with their cultural beliefs and practices.

“This new law is predominantly in response to previous cases where motorists have refused to remove items such as motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, large sunglasses and hoodies.”

A special defence applies where wearing the item that covers all or part of the person?s face is necessary for the person?s medical treatment. In such cases, the person is not required to remove that item.

Hard to see the Liberals saying no to this.

[Photo by tinou bao CC BY]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
77 Responses to
Burqa laws hit the Assembly
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
LSWCHP 10:50 pm 23 Mar 12

astrojax said :

The simple fact is some cultures are rubbish, and some cultural practices are rubbish.

whoa, there, henry… especially on harmony day, a bit of a long bow to label whole cultures ‘rubbish’, though thoroughly agree with the lesser, second clause.

Nail has been hit on the head.

astrojax 2:56 pm 21 Mar 12

The simple fact is some cultures are rubbish, and some cultural practices are rubbish.

whoa, there, henry… especially on harmony day, a bit of a long bow to label whole cultures ‘rubbish’, though thoroughly agree with the lesser, second clause.

p1 1:21 pm 21 Mar 12

Blen_Carmichael said :

“The laws include an option for a female with a head-covering to request that it only be removed in the presence of a female police officer in a private place in accordance with their cultural beliefs and practices.

Not practical. Most dayshift patrol cars are manned by only one officer, and there’s a 50/50 chance it’s a man. Even if it’s a female officer, I doubt she could be bothered going through the palaver of organising a private place for the subject to unveil. Also, what do you do with the three bewildered children in the back who are wondering where the police are taking mum? Chances are that for the routine stops, police will simply accept the ID without insisting on the subject unveiling. Back to square one.

Very practical. If the car is pulled over by a male who is alone, the following will have to happen.
– Person is stopped as part of usual traffic police operation.
– Person is wearing face covering, and indicates that for religious or cultural reasons, they will require to be taken to a private place and be identified by a female officer.
– Because person has three children with her, social services must be called to take charge of children while person is identified.
– Male police officer takes woman to the nearest private place (probably a police station).
– Female police officer makes her way to private place
– Female police officer identifies person.
– Person is returned to car, and then goes and retrieves their children from child services.

Time taken to confirm drivers identity, 12 hours.

HenryBG 1:08 pm 21 Mar 12

Deref said :

Ben_Dover said :

Interesting that the lefties here seem to be supporting the subjugation of women. 🙂

This one isn’t.

I think, and I’ve said so in other threads, that the subjugation of women under Islam (or Christianity, for that matter) is an abomination. But I don’t think the law is a remedy. Time is. I can’t see the children and grandchildren of these women being nearly as ready to knuckle under to iron age superstition and misogynistic dictates.

In the meantime, this law seems like a practical compromise.

So…we should do away with anti-sexual-discrimination and anti-racism laws as well because Time will take care of it, eventually?

I think not.

The problem is the modern fad of pretending everything and everybody is equal and equally valid.
It just isn’t true.
The simple fact is some cultures are rubbish, and some cultural practices are rubbish.
The chronically unacceptable treatment of women under islam (They’re like “cat meat” according to Australia’s head muslim, so they deserve to be raped/eaten by cats if you leave them out) should be excluded from Australia’s shores pro-actively by all means possible – as the French have finally belatedly realised.

We don’t have a properly secular society yet, and this legislation appears to be injecting renewed – discriminatory and sexist – religiosity into our system of government, which should be completely unacceptable.

Blen_Carmichael 12:43 pm 21 Mar 12

“The laws include an option for a female with a head-covering to request that it only be removed in the presence of a female police officer in a private place in accordance with their cultural beliefs and practices.

Not practical. Most dayshift patrol cars are manned by only one officer, and there’s a 50/50 chance it’s a man. Even if it’s a female officer, I doubt she could be bothered going through the palaver of organising a private place for the subject to unveil. Also, what do you do with the three bewildered children in the back who are wondering where the police are taking mum? Chances are that for the routine stops, police will simply accept the ID without insisting on the subject unveiling. Back to square one.

unclebill 12:31 pm 21 Mar 12

So how does the legislation cover or uncover full facial makeup like a car full of rabid Raider or Brumbies fans or faceflag painted orstaylians on Australia day……or an insane clown posse or I’m in my stage makeup or in street performer mode…..

EvanJames 11:41 am 21 Mar 12

p1 said :

Oh, and happy Harmony Day everyone!

I hope everyone’s wearing their burquas in harmony with the fundamentalist muslims!

Deref 10:58 am 21 Mar 12

Ben_Dover said :

Interesting that the lefties here seem to be supporting the subjugation of women. 🙂

This one isn’t.

I think, and I’ve said so in other threads, that the subjugation of women under Islam (or Christianity, for that matter) is an abomination. But I don’t think the law is a remedy. Time is. I can’t see the children and grandchildren of these women being nearly as ready to knuckle under to iron age superstition and misogynistic dictates.

In the meantime, this law seems like a practical compromise.

p1 10:34 am 21 Mar 12

Oh, and happy Harmony Day everyone!

p1 10:15 am 21 Mar 12

Fender said :

I was of the perhaps misguided belief that the done thing is to observe and respect the ways of the country you are in. Not change them to suit yourself and you religious beliefs.

I think you will find you have it backwards. In Australia we have laws which require the police (and everyone else) to respect the religious observances of everyone. How is wearing a burqa not observing and respecting that law?

I think you will find that, rather then changing what we do to suit other people, we are simply changing a law we already had, which was designed to protect all our freedoms, so that it better reflects the original intention.

Fender 7:49 am 21 Mar 12

I was of the perhaps misguided belief that the done thing is to observe and respect the ways of the country you are in. Not change them to suit yourself and you religious beliefs. Anybody with two bob’s worth of common sense knows what religion is a crock anyhow.
As the great Angry Anderson once said, “When in Rome, eat spaghetti”

guinness 6:55 am 21 Mar 12

I am so sick of this bull*** – “Muslims, treat women badly, blah blah blah” – Do you think there is not a christian man out there who doesnt, beat, rape and humilliate his wife? there are plenty of Domestically violent people of all relgions, if you knew even a tiny bit of the Islamic faith you would know how wrong and putrid your thoughts are.

(And for those who will assume it, im a jew not a muslim)

People’s Front of Judea?

bd84 11:12 pm 20 Mar 12

Can’t be bothered reading the comments , no doubt there will be the usual outrageous comments.

He legislation looks reasonable as appropriate precautions have been included. There’s no logical argument against it.

Roadrage77 10:33 pm 20 Mar 12

Burqa’s are so 2005.

Watson 9:53 pm 20 Mar 12

Jim Jones said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Ben_Dover said :

Interesting that the lefties here seem to be supporting the subjugation of women. 🙂

Not this one. I support banning the Burqa and other tools that are used by religious nutters of any flavour to subjugate women.

So a ban on high heel shoes is next?

+100

And underwire bras.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site