I don't see any reason why not, MindlessCruelty.

>>in the burqa style that has the face covered as well, couldn't a bank refuse entry on the same basis?<<

I see no reason why the existing rules on face-concealment should not be extended to any form of covering. Crash helmets, balaclavas, hockey masks, the burka etc... This would take religion out of the equation entirely.

In the UK, a case was made that led to Sikhs being allowed to wear their turban instead of a crash helmet - the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act of 1976 - or a safety helmet on a building site (Section 11 of the UK's Employment Act 1989).

These were accepted as exceptions, on the basis that i) it was a substantial part of their religious belief, and ii) the only party at risk was the wearer.

The former argument (for the burqa) is weak, as it would appear that the vast majority of Muslim women do not feel it necessary to wear the garment. And the second reason for exemption clearly does not apply to security areas.

But an outright ban, at all times and in all places, seems just a little too unnecessarily big-brother, and overtly anti-Muslim.

Agree with your points, pericles.

A burqa covers the face, as do motorcycle helmets balaclavas etc. A turban only covers the hair - face is quite clear, so no issue at all.

Therefore any item of clothing that covers a person's face need be removed before entering places like banks or when presenting evidence in a court hearing.

The vast majority of Muslim women do not wear hijabs, let alone burqas, this talk is being taken to extremes, again. Just like the boat people debates - not a major issue, not a crisis.

Quite so, Pericles and JR. Indeed, I've repeatedly made precisely the same points in various discussions here at OLO.

Of course, that doesn't prevent the Islamophobic contingent from repeatedly expressing their bigotry. Such is the nature of many discussions here, it seems.

Fortunately, the weight of public opinion in the real Australian society still tends towards mutual tolerance, notwithstanding the nonsense expressed by a vocal and bigoted minority.

CJ Morgan

"Fortunately, the weight of public opinion in the real Australian society still tends towards mutual tolerance, notwithstanding the nonsense expressed by a vocal and bigoted minority."

In case we were in any doubt, I think the Federal Poll just proved your assertion.

A little more concentration on real issues like infrastructure, environment, public education and less with the fear mongering could've achieved a different result for Labor. While the likes of Abbott leads the Libs there is no hope for them getting off the fear bandwagon.

AGIR:<<Hi Grateful... you can woffle all you like about 'origins' and Wahabbis...but they probably didn't even have 'bombs' in those days.
>>

The words are not mine but those of Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes. Both belong to the neocon camp and so not exactly apologists for Islam. Of course Bernard Lewis is recognised as the leading scholar in Islam (certainly the most read in and out of academia).

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?

Your behaviour really does look like sour grapes. The grapes are not sour AGIR, you just cann't reach them from where you are standing.

salaams

Pericles:
<<I see no reason why the existing rules on face-concealment should not be extended to any form of covering. Crash helmets, balaclavas, hockey masks, the burka etc... This would take religion out of the equation entirely.>>

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

Perhaps, if she were to show her face to the security guard only and provide her drivers licence which she could then collect on the way.

Would that be a reasonable compromise?