Support NeoGAF

[Tim the Wiz]

As an Aussie I don't support the Burqa ban, as I feel people should generally be able to wear what they want. As I said in a previous thread though, there are certainly limitations to this 'freedom' that everyone in a modern secular society should have to abide by, being pulled over by a police officer and in a court room is certainly grounds for revealing your identity. It seems to be an appropriate 'middle ground',that they can wear what they like in public, but certain situations call for appropriate identification.

If any Muslim posters disagree with this 'middle ground' I would be interested in hearing a rational argument against why this should be the case. Ottoman is an Aussie, would be interested in his opinion.

Agreed. I have an instinctive negative reaction to any move for banning things. Liberty is an intrinsic quality of what makes liberal democracies good states to live in, and any move to curtail that freedom had better hold a reasonable standard of justification to be allowed. As an Australian, I don't want to see the equivalency of the Patriot Act or the Nanny Statism of the UK (which the bizarre anti-swearing laws of Victoria under a truly ridiculous Liberal Premier typify to a tee) or the burqa banning of France. Mill's harm principle should apply and in certain circumstances, such as providing statutory declarations as to identity or providing identity to the police - which should be obvious common sense - the burqa, and all cultural apparel material or otherwise, does have to come off.

 

[ymmv]

The good fight against ridiculous and awful stuff condoned by or because of religious views...

How can anyone defend a religion that leads to this kind of nonsense ...

 

[dejay]

As an Aussie I don't support the Burqa ban, as I feel people should generally be able to wear what they want. As I said in a previous thread though, there are certainly limitations to this 'freedom' that everyone in a modern secular society should have to abide by, being pulled over by a police officer and in a court room is certainly grounds for revealing your identity. It seems to be an appropriate 'middle ground',that they can wear what they like in public, but certain situations call for appropriate identification.

If any Muslim posters disagree with this 'middle ground' I would be interested in hearing a rational argument against why this should be the case. Ottoman is an Aussie, would be interested in his opinion.

I agree 100% The thing of it is by her not copping to the charge like she should have, she's just strengthening the case of the anti-burqua brigade. It's a clear example of how refusing to show your face, at least to a policeman, can hinder the course of justice.

I believe that a woman has the right to cover her face in public if she wants, but I don't believe she should have the right to refuse to reveal her identity to law enforcement officers, male or female, in the discharge of their duties. She was pulled over for a driving offence and she should show her face to have her identity verified. If she doesn't like it, there are plenty of countries and cultures more attuned to her personal beliefs.

 

[ajim]

How can anyone defend a religion that leads to this kind of nonsense ...

lol

 

[Ydahs]

lol no
if i go to a muslim country, i have to conform. my wife will have to wear a burka and i will have to accompany her if she wants to go outside of the house, and so on.
if a muslim comes to a secular country, he has to conform. period. i will not accept people covering their faces, oppressing their women or letting animals bleed to death under the veil of religious freedom. we don't do this shit over here, so you won't do it either.

Oh wow, way to generalize every Muslim country there mate.

As an Aussie I don't support the Burqa ban, as I feel people should generally be able to wear what they want. As I said in a previous thread though, there are certainly limitations to this 'freedom' that everyone in a modern secular society should have to abide by, being pulled over by a police officer and in a court room is certainly grounds for revealing your identity. It seems to be an appropriate 'middle ground',that they can wear what they like in public, but certain situations call for appropriate identification.

If any Muslim posters disagree with this 'middle ground' I would be interested in hearing a rational argument against why this should be the case. Ottoman is an Aussie, would be interested in his opinion.

I'm a Aussie who happens to be Muslim! Is there really only two of us...? I agree with you though. I completely support a law that requires women wearing burqas to reveal their identity if need be. I'm completely against the notion of there being a burqa ban, at least in Australia since it's a non issue.

And Carnita Matthews? That's not an Islamic name so I'm assuming she's a convert? What race card is she playing exactly?

 

[Enosh]

How can anyone defend a religion that leads to this kind of nonsense ...

bah, this has nothing to do with religion, that's just the ninja convention 2011

you just don't see the good ones

 

[SmokyDave]

How can anyone defend a religion that leads to this kind of nonsense ...

Chick (?) 4th from the left has sharp toes. Do not want.

 

[Raist]

Maybe it's OS's wife

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Who is OS? I never go into these types of threads, but now I'm kinda curious.

I've heard the Legends, now I want to know the man.

 

[Speedymanic]

Maybe it's OS's wife

Classy.

:/

 

[jaxword]

I seriously think we should implement a male burka.

 

[Speedymanic]

The good fight against ridiculous and awful stuff condoned by or because of religious views...

Which is mostly against...

 

[Cryptic Psychedelic]

I seriously think we should implement a male burka.

 

[Raist]

Classy.

:/

Well, he's from Australia and apparently his wife runs into trouble a lot, so who knows?

 

[Speedymanic]

Well, he's from Australia and apparently his wife runs into trouble a lot, so who knows?

That explains you indirectly insulting his wife?

Chick (?) 4th from the left has sharp toes. Do not want.

Maybe it's OS's wife

As I said, classy. :/

 

[Raist]

That explains you indirectly insulting his wife?

As I said, classy. :/

Insulting? The fuck?

 

[SmokyDave]

That explains you indirectly insulting his wife?=

I believe Raists post was aimed at the woman in the OP, not the woman I was joking about.

Edit: Seems I'm a little late.

Edit Edit: Brit? BRIT?!?! I'm an Englishman, I'll have you know.

 

[Raist]

I believe Raists post was aimed at the woman in the OP, not the woman I was joking about.

Yeah.
Hint: two consecutive posts are not necessarily related. That's why there's a quote function.
Plus I'd never back up a f'in britton.

Spoiler

edit: English, British, all the same. You're one

Spoiler

utterly messed up

country, get over it. Also,

Spoiler

Scots are better

.

 

[Speedymanic]

Retracted, but there was no need to imply the woman in the article might be his wife.

Guy might be religious/love his religion, but I doubt he'd act like one of those morons or his wife would make 'allegedly' false allegations.

 

[SmokyDave]

Retracted, but there was no need to imply the woman in the article might be his wife.

Guy might be religious/love his religion, but I doubt he'd act like one of those morons or his wife would make 'allegedly' false allegations.

I'm sure it was in jest. OS is a cool cat and well respected. I get the same thing from the opposite angle, if there was a news story about an Englishman torching a mosque, I'd expect the first reply would have my name in it.

 

[Raist]

I'm sure it was in jest. OS is a cool cat and well respected. I get the same thing from the opposite angle, if there was a news story about a Britishman torching a mosque, I'd expect the first reply would have my name in it.

Pretty much.

Spoiler

and fixed.

 

[Brobzoid]

is this a ploy to allow a burqa ban to pass parliament without looking politically incorrect?

conspiracy

 

[Chuckie]

Edit Edit: Brit? BRIT?!?! I'm an Englishman, I'll have you know.

What's the difference?

 

[Ydahs]

Maybe it's OS's wife

I think OS posted a picture of his wife before in one of those 'post your partner' threads. She doesn't wear a burqa.

 

[Raist]

What's the difference?

None. It's just the English being irrational and insecure. They wanted to invade other parts of GB but now they're acting like they're not the same country or something.

[MAIL="I know you're joking, but here's my fun fact of the day!"][/EMAIL]
I think OS posted a picture of his wife before in one of those 'post your partner' threads. She doesn't wear a burqa.

Ruining the party

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

I find it ironic that the people screaming victory chants don't realize that this will make it easier to justify burqa bans. Also, brazenly celebrating such a "victory" by taunting the society that you live in probably won't endear you to that society either...

 

[SmokyDave]

What's the difference?

The other 3 are cover versions. Great cover versions, but cover versions nonetheless.

Spoiler

Jus' joshing UK-GAF.

None. It's just the English being irrational and insecure. They wanted to invade other parts of GB but now they're acting like they're not the same country or something.

Je vais te couper la visage.

You need to picture that in the French equivalent of a menacing cockney accent.

 

[CTID]

What's the difference?

We invented everything and colonised the world.

 

[Jeels]

Why do people in this thread think Muslims have to defend this? From an Islamic standpoint, she broke the law. Within Islam, you are told to follow the law of the lands you go to.

From a non-Islamic standpoint, you could make the exact same case as the judge, that you need proof without reasonable doubt. Then again, there are ways to prove in a courtroom that that really is her. I'm not sure where I stand on this from a legal standpoint, but both arguments can be made.

 

[Chuckie]

What's the difference?

Did nobody notice the link in my post?

 

[jaxword]

I think OS posted a picture of his wife before in one of those 'post your partner' threads. She doesn't wear a burqa.

Pretty sure that a lot of those posts are fake. Not to say that particular one is, but just people posting fakes in general for mad internet cred yo.



And again, I reiterate: We need to implement the male Burka. I strongly believe this will help the controversy.

 

[CTID]

Did nobody notice the link in my post?

yousonofabitch.gif

 

[Ashes]

Looks like os got under a few people's skin....

 

[SmokyDave]

Why do people in this thread think Muslims have to defend this? From an Islamic standpoint, she broke the law. Within Islam, you are told to follow the law of the lands you go to.

From a non-Islamic standpoint, you could make the exact same case as the judge, that you need proof without reasonable doubt. Then again, there are ways to prove in a courtroom that that really is her. I'm not sure where I stand on this from a legal standpoint, but both arguments can be made.

Nobody has to defend it, it's indefensible. It's more that people ought to remember this topic the next time a burkha ban is mentioned or a topic on integration issues arises.

 

[Ashes]

Why couldn't you just have said that in your first post?

 

[SmokyDave]

Why couldn't you just have said that in your first post?

Oh come on, it was a well meant jibe. I know what OS would say about this, he'd say she broke islamic rules by ignoring the law of the land and therefore this is in no way related to islam. It's just a bit of a giggle, there's no actual malice meant. The only reason OS gets mentioned specifically is because he's very prolific in these threads and writes long, well written, polite posts. It's actually kinda complimentary.

Think of it as more of a 'nudge & wink' and less a 'finger pointing'.

 

[Ashes]

No not the jibe against os. The actually relevant on topic stuff...

 

[Speedymanic]

I, personally, don't think banning the burka would achieve much (although something with regards to confirming your identity when someone's wearing one has to be done), people would eventually move onto claiming the hijab wasn't allowing them to integrate properly/women were being subjugated by their husbands, fathers, etc.

And who knows where it would go from there, banning the koran because it's supposedly an 'evil' book?

 

[genjiZERO]

Not really the point though.

it's always the point. The law strives for neutrality and there are goods reasons for its standards of proof.

 

[SmokyDave]

No not the jibe against os. The actually relevant on topic stuff...

Quote, motherfucker. Do you click it?

Oh, I see. I didn't feel the need to point out that this is something that burkha ban proponents have warned against, nor did I see any reason to point out this is linked to integration issues. That much is as plain as the nose on your face.

 

[Ashes]

oh my... Anyways moving on.. I don't like people playing the racist card, especially when they lie about it, but that shit ain't cool when it happens to you bro. So don't knock it. Its a frightening experience, and its so under-reported its not even funny.

Then again, should the media report every single complaint against the police? Let alone not being able to print the ones that don't complain. A friend of mine got stopped by the police and finger printed. He was not shouting or being abusive, but it scared the shit out of him, when they were joking about his 'monkey looks'. It's hard to explain how racism actually feels when it's done to you.

On that point, here in the UK, the identity thing is easily sorted via finger prints. I don't see why aussies can't do that in regards to stop and searches.

edit: Looks like they are way ahead of me. Sydney morning herald:

 

[Antakken]

How can anyone defend a religion that leads to this kind of nonsense ...

I'm muslim and i lol'd more than i should have! Stupid persons are stupid.

And

Spoiler

hardcore Muslim people, please stop embarrassing me

 

[SmokyDave]

edit: Looks like they are way ahead of me. Sydney morning herald:

This makes Dave angry.

The Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, said he would ask the Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, to recommend strategies to improve identification standards. Laws would be ''tidied up'' to allow alternative identification methods, such as the taking of fingerprints, for people who for social or religious reasons, could not show their face.

It's not the fucking law that is at fault here.

 

[tycoonheart]

I don't think OS will be coming into these threads anymore. He seemed pretty pissed that we were talking about him being a converted Muslim in the last thread.

 

[Ashes]

This makes Dave angry.


It's not the fucking law that is at fault here.

Well... erm.... there is a loophole in the law that allowed her to get off. We need to close loopholes in law rather than pander to what makes 'Dave' angry.

I don't think OS will be coming into these threads anymore. He seemed pretty pissed that we were talking about him being a converted Muslim in the last thread.

You make it sound like a witch hunt.

The talk should be about the topic, not the poster. It's so off topic...

 

[Tim the Wiz]

One English person saying "we" and the other defending some weird concept of Australian law? :/

The important thing to come out of this case is that there is a procedural issue involving people wearing the burqa that can lead to fraud or an unacceptable level of deniability in matters of identification. Seeking alternative, yet just as effective, methods of identification in such a procedural instance is a good practical solution. However, there will be certain circumstances when visual identification needs will require the removal of the burqa, and I'm sure common sense will prevail in those obvious situations--and if there is some form of backlash when this occurs, you will find me a staunch defender of any reasonable action in that frame.

A wider point: the law is built to reflect community standards, and the central one at stake here is liberty. Freedom to do or wear what you like, including the burqa. As long as it does not trample Mill's harm principle, I fully support that endeavor. Changing laws to allow for alternative practical solutions is not a concession or admittance of fault. It is innate to the dynamic nature of the law.

 

[perfectchaos007]

A lot of private businesses have a sign in front of their stores for people to remove their masks before entering. ( To prevent burglary of course ) but private businesses are also not allowed to refuse service based on race or religion. If the burqa is a religious symbol, whats a business owner to do!?

 

[Nesotenso]

How can anyone defend a religion that leads to this kind of nonsense ...

Yeah all muslim women, who are widespread in the Far East, West , North Africa, Indian where the niqab and the Burkha. Yes its the religion which compels muslim women to wear that and most muslim women from cultures wear that.

Also interesting to note that you sourced the image from Debbie Schlussel's website

 

[Count Dookkake]

A lot of private businesses have a sign in front of their stores for people to remove their masks before entering. ( To prevent burglary of course ) but private businesses are also not allowed to refuse service based on race or religion. If the burqa is a religious symbol, whats a business owner to do!?

Tell them to take off the face-mask.

 

[HK-47]

And this is why people support the ban on the burqa, because of idiots like this broad.

lol no

Hiding your face to avoid prosectution is no where near the real reasons.