Going out in public means that you are identifiable. If you are identifiable then there is an obligation on others to also be identificable by showing their faces. If we all wore masks then society would be a very miserable place full of distrust and fear. I have no problems about symbols of religions. I do have a problem about masks. It is to do with the fact that bank robbers often wear balaclavas.

So if you want to wear a Burqua then do it with others who do not mind if you are anonymous. If you must wear a Burqua then show some other symbol that tells me who you are - not what you are.

So people who wear Burquas could also wear their names prominently displayed. If they fail to do this then they should be fined.

We will then see how long Burquas last.

LOL, CJ :)
Oh something else funny- did you see another use of Godwin's Law directed at you by formersnag, in the "gays seeking asylum" thread?

Protagoras,
"...the burqa is not a mandate written into the Quran and is not part of Islamic law or religion."

The koran asks people to dress moderate.
The koran and bible are so full of contradictions that anyone can cherry-pick bits that they 'need' to back up their belief or opinion.

That's why you find Christians on OLO who happily vilify homosexuality 'coz it's a sin in the bible, while they conveniently ignore the text that tells them that wearing two different kinds of fabrics is prohibited.
Next time I'm in a discussion with Christian homophobes I'll ask them what they're wearing.

Not only are these holy books full of contradictions, they can also be interpreted in many different ways.

The term 'moderate' can be interpreted whatever way one wants.
A nudist might find that dressing in a budgie smuggler is quite moderate.
If we start dictating to religious people how to interpreted their holy books, we will have to preach to them till the cows come home.

So, women who choose to dress in a burqa and say that they do this to appease their god by dressing as moderately as possible. Crazy, but I'm certainly not going to tell them that I am a better interpreter of a holy text than they are.
If the burqa is their interpretation of "moderate dress", I mean... who gives?

Celivia – I have concluded that a ban on the burqa would be counter-productive but probably not for the reasons you imagine:

1. Women will be locked away by fanatics

2. Fanatics feed off Western ‘religious’ repression.

3. As in Europe, the burqa clad in Australia will appeal any bans and then breach the laws of the land if they’re unsuccessful. Every year thousands of women - such as the unsuccessful Leyla Sahin, the plaintiff in the European Court of Human Rights case, screech 'discrimination!' and find themselves in trouble for refusing to remove their hijabs.

“ But then you still continue to find reasons why a ban really would be justified and go on about the evils of Islam that are not even relevant to Australian burqa wearing muslimahs.”

I remind you that you oppose a ban yet you can also justify the ban by ridiculing the burqa:

“Look, I too think that the burka is a ridiculous outfit, that someone who believes that wearing it will make their god happy is a nutter,.”

A 'nutter?' Careful Celivia because you are vilifying 'Islam', are you not? Pot/Kettle?

Are you suggesting that because I now oppose the ban, I should be gagged because I cite reasons why I prefer not to witness its use in society? Go turn the thumb screws elsewhere Celivia.

I will continue to denounce fanatics in our midst who subjugate and oppress women under the name of Islam and I will, when appropriate, also denounce fanatics who terrorise under the guise of other religions, sects or caste status.

Furthermore what occurs in other nations *is* in fact very relevant to muslimahs in Australia but I find your parochialism, well errr....quaint!

Ninety percent of clients are female, seen by the Islamic Sharia Council, which oversees the large number of Muslim courts operating in Britain.

Thousands of Muslim women in the UK are seeking divorces from their husbands. Why? I trust you are not sufficiently gullible in believing that all Muslim women in Australia are liberated and wear the burqa by choice?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197478/Sharia-law-UK--How-Islam-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html

Celivia, "I'm sure that all the child molesting priests had bare faces too. It's other body parts that they should've kept covered."

You gave the example of a chaplain and I responded by drawing your attention to the Qld government's Blue Card system. This stuff about priests, religious instruction and so on is coming totally from left field. You have no idea where I might stand on chaplains and it is irrelevant to the thread.

Returning to security, it is not limited to checking ID in a private room by another woman as you suggest, it is also about being able to see and recognise a person in the school grounds. That is no different from any area where security is required. Wear the burqa in public by all means but not inside the school or when accompanying the students on excursions.

Protagoras

Please demonstrate where I have:

Manipulated facts. The percentages I have quoted are based on ABS estimates of the number of Muslims currently living in Australia (allowing for increases since census) and a fair extrapolation of women who actually wear the full burqa - most orthodox Muslim women wear the hijab.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/bfdda1ca506d6cfaca2570de0014496e!OpenDocument

Abused anyone? You have personally abused me.

>> Your active manipulation of facts, your abuse and the retreat to argumentum ad ignorantium reveals the gurglings of one in possession of one half of one sensory neuron. <<

The above is just a single comment from your post which amounts to nothing more than a stream of abuse directed to me personally.

Cornflower

I'm not sure I understand your point regarding chaplains v burqa wearing mothers.

Chaplains are proselytizing their religion irrespective of the religious beliefs of children, while the burqa wearing mothers are picking up their children from school.

Do you support ban on burqas, but not a separation between the state and religion?

Awaiting your edification.

CF
Re Chaplains, what Severin said. Thank you, Severin for seeing the connection. A blue card is hardly going to stop chaplains from spreading nonsense.
Re Security, yes I agree, I thought I had agreed already with CJ, who, in the beginning of this debate, said,
“Any security concerns can easily be allayed by regulation and practice, rather than legislation. I think that it would be quite reasonable for the burqa to be treated in much the same way as a motorcycle helmet or a balaclava, and that businesses, government agencies, airports etc are entitled to refuse admission to somebody who is unable to be identified because they are wearing a burqa. No need to change the law on that account.”

As I said, I was just exploring whether there could be made arrangements in some cases to make both parties happy. If there are no low-cost and viable ideas for individual arrangements, which burqa-wearers probably have to negotiate themselves in their own life situations and communities, then of course they’d have to make the choice whether to give up going to certain places or participating in certain activities or whether to give up the burqa.
There is nothing wrong with thinking about and sharing possible alternatives, CF. This is the last I’m going to say about this because there is no argument.

Protagoras
Yes, I do criticise and ridicule the religious when they believe in utter nonsense or express their religion by things like covering the face, or wearing a torture device pendant such as the crucifix around their neck. So what? I do not constantly highlight all the negatives of only one particular religion or tell them what to do or to wear- as long as they don’t impose their religion on other people’s freedom.

TBC