grateful, "I understand where you're coming from, but then the lady would be exposed to everyone in the bank."

So what, don't you imagine that there are men and women in the general community who wouldn't also prefer to remain incognito but have always had to comply?

Taking the example where people are visiting schools, it is not adequate to have a furtive showing of identity under special circumstances and then roam free without anybody being able to identify the person.

cornflower
<<So what, don't you imagine that there are men and women in the general community who wouldn't also prefer to remain incognito but have always had to comply?>>

Comply with what? Your wishes?

I imagine there are many women who would like to escape the harrassment that they are subjected to in the workplace and out (don't you read the papers?).

I knew one such woman, long before i became Muslim. She was abused by her father and boyfriends of her elder sister. Once she had left home, she wanted to cover and did so with loose clothing.

If a woman wants to cover partially or completely, whether it be for intimacy with her Creator or just to feel more secure from abuse, i think she has every right to do so. People like yourself have no right to demand otherwise.

As I said, if there is an issue of security in places like banks, then such concerns can easily be accomodated without imposing an unnecessary burden on such woman.

Please do not give me any shallow speaches about how woman are respected and have equal rights in this society. I grew up in the burbs and i saw what teenage girls had to endure. This was and is wrong and is not something Australians should be proud of. But most never notice it because it is, as you youself suggest, the NORM.

grateful

You are spinning wildly off the subject. I gave the example of children in schools where the expectation is and quite rightly so, that anyone admitted would be readily and easily identifiable while on the grounds. That is a normal requirement of security.

There is no discrimination, anyone with sufficient legitimate reason to enter the grounds is admitted, however the very reasonable proviso is that they be readily identifiable and describable while on the grounds.

There are other circumstances where similar rules are reasonable and the interior of a bank is one, although it would not be unreasonable to also intercept persons whose faces are covered in the vicinity of a bank (given that example). Similarly there may be circumstances where minimum or particular dress codes might be decided for public areas. An example could be for the public appearance of a visiting dignitary.

There is nothing discriminatory in applying the rules for security. If surveillance cannot easily identify, there is always an increased risk.

Could anyone tell me if honor killings have any place in this debate. As they are part of sharia law.

That's an aggressive stance, grateful.

>>If a woman wants to cover partially or completely, whether it be for intimacy with her Creator or just to feel more secure from abuse, i think she has every right to do so. People like yourself have no right to demand otherwise.<<

Equally, when we have a need to insist that the face needs to be uncovered for security reasons, we have every right to do so. "People like yourself have no right to demand otherwise."

We operate an extremely tolerant society when it come to the individual's private life. It is not at all unreasonable to request a consistent standard of behaviour in public, especially when that standard is socially totally acceptable and inoffensive.

I'm afraid that the need to "feel more secure from abuse" is subservient, in this situation, to the safety and comfort of others.

If the pressure and strain of exposure is too great, perhaps it would be wiser for the individual to compromise by finding alternatives to physically visiting a bank etc., rather than expect the rest of the world to fall into line.

@ Grateful

You said:

"Reflect a bit: if the only way to support your agenda is through denying quite basic facts then what does this say about your agenda?"

May I remind you that the 'facts' is exactly what my argument is based on.. remember ? "Islam 101"

Quran...
hadith..
Sunnah...
Jurisprudence...

If you want to argue with those 'facts'.. I suggest it says more about 'your' agenda :)

I hope Pericles and CJ and ilk have noticed how you have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any kind of conformity with the issue of Burga's in Banks... good grief.. "Show her face to the security guard"? if she can show her face to some infidel at the door.. it seems a tad inconsistent to then decline to expose her face to others.

Mate..its...a....bank..... not Fitzroy st St Kilda.

So...no, it's not ok.

Personally.. if people want to wear that crazy getup..and suffer in it.. fine, but fit in with Aussie law ok? Further.. if people wish to have such an "in your face" attitude about their religion.. then they can expect some social consequences just like 'we' do.

No Burqa in

Banks..
Courts...
Licence photo's
Passport photo's

and any other place relevant ..or deemed relevant by Australian Authorities.