Dear Poirot,

This is all a matter of perception.

I have read the Waleed Aly article, (as I did state
earlier) as well as the Cory Bernardi one, and the
balanced one by Dr Abdullah Saeed of Islamic Studies
at Melbourne University.

It was Dr Saeed who pointed out that those who wear the
face veil should have the right to wear it in public
and private. But they do not have the right to insist
they be allowed to wear it in ALL workplaces and ALL
environments. There are for example certain professions
that require the face to be shown. Professions such as
teaching, nursing, medicine, engineering and the like...
Similarly at airports, and sensitive places like certain
premises - banks, courts, Parliament Houses, where people
are required to show their ID.

If those who wear the face veil argue it is their right
to work in these professions and go into these places wearing
their face veil at the same time then the community certainly
has the right to say no to them.

Dr Saeed tells us that even Islamic legal norms dictate
that the community has the right to dictate certain things
unacceptable or acceptable as part of public interest.

It looks like we shall have to agree to disagree on this
issue.

Foxy,

"...There are for example certain professions
that require the face to be shown. Professions such as
teaching, nursing, medicine, engineering and the like...
Similarly at airports, and sensitive places like certain
premises - banks, courts, Parliament Houses, where people
are required to show their ID.

If those who wear the face veil argue it is their right
to work in these professions and go into these places wearing
their face veil at the same time then the community certainly
has the right to say no to them."

What has any of that got to do with Bishop and Co springing these interim rules regarding the Parliament gallery?

This "burqa" ban was instituted for "security" reasons - even though no-one with a burqa has ever entered the gallery to watch Parliament. All of a sudden Bronnie and Co decide it's such a "serious issue" that they have to institute a ban. Now she's saying it was in response to a "rumour about burka-clad protesters".

Feeble and stupid.

No-one has even tried to explain why someone should have to be segregated behind a glass barrier when security has found no reason for them not to be granted entry.

Peta Credlin was the one who "advised" Christensen to make a submission to Ms Bishop "on security grounds".

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peta-credlin-backs-burqa-ban-in-federal-parliament-20140930-10o5pn.html

Nicely facilitated by the PM's office as usual by Credlin.

Shame the stench was so bad, poor old Tones had to fall back on his default saviour position to squash it.

It was merely one more round (and a failed one) of this rancid govt ratcheting up Islamic hysteria as a diversion from their hopeless governance.

Poirot: No-one has even tried to explain why someone should have to be segregated behind a glass barrier when security has found no reason for them not to be granted entry.

Because they are stupid people driven by a stupid religion & stupid cultural practices. The people of Australia need to be protected from people who are that stupid.

May May,

"People on this thread are opposed to the burqa for CULTURAL reasons. It intimidates them, makes them paranoiac and fearful due to media brainwashing and their own lack of worldly education."

Is that one of your factual statements?
Care to back it up with a smidgin of evidence?

Great how much time has been spent on this bit of dog whistling. The number of women who were the burka is tiny in Australia and I dare say none have ever been or wanted to go and watch 'the children' in action in parliament house.

I work in the health profession. Women, no matter how heavily veiled have the slightest problem removing this in front of another woman.

Many of us women would be mightily uncomfortable being frisked by a male or taking our bikini top of on a public beach. Likewise, women who have grown up socialized that showing the face is immodest would find it confronting to show their face.

I'm from non Anglo background and, though I've lived here for most of my life, still cannot get over the hysteria that follows here when a female breast is exposed. It's really what you're used to and find acceptable in regards to modesty.

Peoples, the few women who feel the need to be heavily veiled are really and truly not an issue in any of our current debates, which are much more important.

MAY MAY...

If parliament house security can ascertain positive ID, then no problem. As I say (again) I personally have no issue with what anybody chooses to wear. As long as it's lawful, then who cares ?