Dear SOG,

I also thought that wearing any kind of face covering or mask was
illegal - and you could be asked to remove it at any time. I was asked by a security guard to remove my beige lambswool cossack hat (that I thought was cute) while attending "Question Time," and being ushered to my seat in the Public Gallery of Parliament House in Canberra. I asked the guard, "Why, what's wrong with wearing a hat?"
He simply replied - "Them's the rules," so I obliged. I wonder what he would have said if I told him I had to wear my hat for "religious-reasons?"

The police officer was merely doing his job and it sounds like this
woman over-reacted. She didn't get very far. As for the judge's
decision - not being a lawyer - I'm not sure (as others have pointed
out) - how limited were the judge's powers in this court - or what the
point was that the judge was trying to make. So I can't say "the law is an ass," on the decision the judge made. The fact remains - she
was made to remove her face covering - and that given the circumstances - was the right thing to do.

The lady should not have removed her face-cover in contravention of her belief-system, no matter what the policeman said or how many times he said it - but she did, and when she was ashamed of that act (as indeed she should), rather than face her guilt she made up a story, a false story against another (the policeman), which is terribly wrong.

It looks like the policeman did not strip her, so other than the fact that he was serving the state as a policeman he was OK. What he should have done if he considered it so important to check her identity (which it probably wasn't), is to either use that new technology that allows one to see beneath people's clothing, or to wait for a policewoman.

There is another important point at issue here, & that is road safety.

I don't believe it is possible to drive a car safely when ones vision is so restricted by cloth.

I also believe that there is far too great a chance for the vision of a driver so clad, to be totally obscured in an emergency situation.

I can now see the reason the Saudis don't permit ladies to drive cars. We should institute a similar ban, at least on those wearing this ridiculous mask.

Looks like? the cop never touched her she lied.
She is a trouble maker her supporters too.
Here is a true story, from my past job.
I was in a northern country town, 3 Muslim youths members of my union, had been kicked out of their Motel, drunken revelry damage, and females being sick all over the room.
On telling them it would be imposable to save their jobs I was told I was a racist, and to have a HAMBURGER.
A cousin was on his way from Sydney location, to transport these three home.
I stayed with them, till he arrived.
4 hours in to what was to be that wait, about 8 at night, a phone rang Cousin had been grounded in a town not far from my home 172klm an hour on P plates.
all 4 said the cop was a racist.
I [it was my job] went to court with them, 9 relations screamed racism at that police officer out side the court.
TELL me why are they any different than white trash?
I transported them the 4 hour drive to cousin, it was my job,being told every minute how racist Australians are.
LAWS are for everyone.

Forrest Gumpp: Something must now be done about the 'right' to cover the face in public,

As I stated previously. It's a very old Law but it states that something like, "It's offence to be out at night wearing a mask, striped shirt or black pyjamas & slippers & or carrying a bag or sack for carrying impliments for unlawfully gaining entrance to a building, etc."

Okay folks, you seem to be talking about a different case to the one I have read.

From the SMH.

''I felt very uncomfortable so I partly lifted my veil. He wasn't satisfied with that so he moved closer to me in a threatening manner, moved his hand closer to my veil where I felt that he was going to rip it off my face. I then in fear before lifting up my veil stated I am not allowed to show my face.''
Yesterday, Judge Clive Jeffreys said there was no evidence the statutory declaration had been made by Mrs Matthews or even that it was knowingly false.
''All we know is that a person with a black burqa came in [to Campbelltown police station] with a man in a brown suit with an envelope and that's it,'' he said.
''I'm not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she made the complaint and even if I was … I would not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was knowingly false.''

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woman-convicted-of-police-veillifting-lie-set-to-go-free-20110620-1gbzk.html#ixzz1PyN8tdiY

When sonofgloin says “This socially divisive mother of seven young Australians then accused the officer of physical assault by forcibly removing her face covering, and in tow with Guantanimo Bay survivor Mando Habib went to the police to file a complaint.” Well not quite. She has said she felt physically intimidated into doing something against her will and her religion and the judge found there was a reasonable assumption that this was a genuine belief, thus there was reasonable doubt that the complaint was knowingly false.

This is entirely separate to the issue of identity.

It is not rocket science folks.

Or am I talking about a different case?