Call to ban the burqa in Australia

[lionking]

A Sydney store was robbed yesterday by a gunman wearing a burqa, leading to a senator to call for it's ban for security reasons:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1049472/senator-calls-for-burqa-ban-after-robbery

South Australian senator Cory Bernardi yesterday wrote a post on his personal blog saying the veil was "emerging as the preferred disguise of bandits and n'er do wells".
It followed reports that a gunman wearing a full black burqa and sunglasses had robbed a Sydney store yesterday.
Senator Bernardi also said he believed the burqa stopped women from integrating into Australian society "The burqa isolates some Australians from others," he wrote.
"It is un-Australian — and its symbolic barrier is far greater than the measure of cloth it is created from.
"For safety and for society, the burqa needs to be banned."

Whatever the motive for the Senator's comment, I think security concerns are legitimate. Comments?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Whatever the motive for the Senator's comment, I think security concerns are legitimate. Comments?

Would not the more sensible move be to ban any clothing that is concealing in this way? Targeting the burqa specifically could just move the problem to another article of clothing. If wearing an oversized clean room suit they can be about as concealing of identity as a burqa. Or a sheet converted to a ghost costume.

 

[lionking]

Would not the more sensible move be to ban any clothing that is concealing in this way? Targeting the burqa specifically could just move the problem to another article of clothing. If wearing an oversized clean room suit they can be about as concealing of identity as a burqa. Or a sheet converted to a ghost costume.

But people entering a store dressed in a sheet, or a bike helmet or any other clothing concealing their body and face (apart from a burqa) would attract attention and result in a call to the police.

ETA People cannot enter a bank wearing a bike helmet

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I think it is fair to apply the same rules to burqas as to other concealing clothing. In the US there are often religious exemptions to these rules and that bothers me. Any place that bans concealing clothing of this level should apply to the burqa as well. If the laws and rules in Australia do not have an exemption for religious clothing it is less the need for a new law and instead a need to enforce the policies equally. If the laws and rules as currently stand only apply to specific articles I think that is a problem. For instance your example of motorcycle helmets in banks. I would say that as well is too specific. It is best to ban all concealing headgear and articles of clothing that goes over the head instead of attempting to keep up with the current fad in criminal concealment.

ETA: I worked in a convenience store for a number of years. Customers entering while still wearing their motorcycle helmets was not unusual nor cause for concern usually. Still, during Halloween we banned all face concealing articles of clothing. It applied to the motorcycle helmets even though store policy usually did not. I think having the policy year round would have been sensible even though our specific store was not held up once in the years I worked there. Snatch and grab was the usual type of theft. Other stores in the city did have issues with robberies. Banks obviously should have issues with any head concealing articles. Again, I find it bad policy to try and target specific articles rather than all articles that can be used in such a way.

 

[Uncayimmy]

But people entering a store dressed in a sheet, or a bike helmet or any other clothing concealing their body and face (apart from a burqa) would attract attention and result in a call to the police.

ETA People cannot enter a bank wearing a bike helmet

You mean motorcycle helmet, right? I've never tried to enter a bank wearing one, but convenience stores don't like it, I know that.

 

[lionking]

You mean motorcycle helmet, right?

Correct. If they are banned in banks, I can't see any reason why burqas aren't.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Correct. If they are banned in banks, I can't see any reason why burqas aren't.

Exactly my point. Why call out specific article when a rule that covers the practical application of apparel allows for new items or previously unabused items to be regulated?

 

[lionking]

Exactly my point. Why call out specific article when a rule that covers the practical application of apparel allows for new items or previously unabused items to be regulated?

We're sort of agreeing, but we're not. What article of clothing apart from a burqa completely disguises someone? And don't say a sheet.

 

[Puppycow]

Whatever the motive for the Senator's comment, I think security concerns are legitimate. Comments?

OK, so ban it anywhere that a ski mask or other face-concealing mask or helmet is banned.

But the senator also gave another rationale, which is that it "isolates people" and is "un-Australian." I'm not sure I agree with a general ban for such a reason. The question I have is, do women wear burkas because they want to or because they are pressured to? If it's the latter, then I would favor a ban on gender-equality grounds. But of course it's probably more complicated than that: There are probably some women who want to wear burkas and some women who are pressured to wear them. So if there are significantly more of the latter than the former, I could agree with a general ban.

 

[Orphia Nay]

OK, so ban it anywhere that a ski mask or other face-concealing mask or helmet is banned.

But the senator also gave another rationale, which is that it "isolates people" and is "un-Australian." I'm not sure I agree with a general ban for such a reason. The question I have is, do women wear burkas because they want to or because they are pressured to? If it's the latter, then I would favor a ban on gender-equality grounds. But of course it's probably more complicated than that: There are probably some women who want to wear burkas and some women who are pressured to wear them. So if there are significantly more of the latter than the former, I could agree with a general ban.

Good points, Puppycow.

I'm not sure one incident of robbery is enough to ban burqas, but if there were more examples, I'd agree. I also agree that women should not be forced to wear them. Perhaps I'd go so far as to say that just one robbery and pressurization is a good reason to ban them. So the robbery might be the impetus for change.

Thinking aloud here. Interesting topic.

 

[lionking]

OK, so ban it anywhere that a ski mask or other face-concealing mask or helmet is banned.

Therein lies the problem. Any attempt to do so here would have the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission going to the courts crying "racial and religious vilification".

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Ski masks, those zip up hoodies, many Halloween costumes, clean room suits (they vary in concealment, but I wear these constantly), some trenchcoat and head covering combinations, some military garb designed for concealment... ect ect ect.

Most of these items are inappropriate to wear in general public life but all have their specific conditions that are appropriate. The burqa is designed to conceal, a goal that is at odds with public safety regulations in western societies.

I know we agree in basic principle and are quibbling over the approach Lionking. Burqa's should not be given a free pass just because the items are religious/cultural apparel. I have no problem with them being permitted in streets or in parks and such but feel any stores that have rules against face concealment should be allowed to enforce those rules with regard to burqas. I consider it to be similar to the issue of turbans and safety helmets, though the principle from the point of public saftey/theft prevention instead of individual saftey/liabilty protection.

 

[lionking]

Fair enough.

 

[Puppycow]

Chistopher Hitchens makes the case

. . . the particular and special demand to consider the veil and the burqa as an exemption applies only to women. And it also applies only to religious practice (and, unless we foolishly pretend otherwise, only to one religious practice). This at once tells you all you need to know: Society is being asked to abandon an immemorial tradition of equality and openness in order to gratify one faith, one faith that has a very questionable record in respect of females.
. . .
in fact, we have no assurance that Muslim women put on the burqa or don the veil as a matter of their own choice. A huge amount of evidence goes the other way. Mothers, wives, and daughters have been threatened with acid in the face, or honor-killing, or vicious beating, if they do not adopt the humiliating outer clothing that is mandated by their menfolk. This is why, in many Muslim societies, such as Tunisia and Turkey, the shrouded look is illegal in government buildings, schools, and universities. Why should Europeans and Americans, seeking perhaps to accommodate Muslim immigrants, adopt the standard only of the most backward and primitive Muslim states? The burqa and the veil, surely, are the most aggressive sign of a refusal to integrate or accommodate. Even in Iran there is only a requirement for the covering of hair, and I defy anybody to find any authority in the Quran for the concealment of the face.

Not that it would matter in the least if the Quran said otherwise. Religion is the worst possible excuse for any exception to the common law. Mormons may not have polygamous marriage, female circumcision is a federal crime in this country, and in some states Christian Scientists face prosecution if they neglect their children by denying them medical care. Do we dare lecture the French for declaring simply that all citizens and residents, whatever their confessional allegiance, must be able to recognize one another in the clearest sense of that universal term?

So it's really quite simple. My right to see your face is the beginning of it, as is your right to see mine. Next but not least comes the right of women to show their faces, which easily trumps the right of their male relatives or their male imams to decide otherwise. The law must be decisively on the side of transparency. The French are striking a blow not just for liberty and equality and fraternity, but for sorority too.

 

[WildCat]

We're sort of agreeing, but we're not. What article of clothing apart from a burqa completely disguises someone? And don't say a sheet.

A ski mask?

 

[Careyp74]

The senator is calling for a ban on wearing the burqa anywhere in public. I think there are no grounds for banning the wearing of one outside of a business or bank. The explanation of alienating people is a bit far fetched. It alienates the wearer, who wears one according to their religious beliefs.

 

[Puppycow]

It alienates the wearer, who wears one according to their religious beliefs.

Or that of their male relatives.

 

[lionking]

A ski mask?

Yes, that well known Australian fashion statement.

 

[arthwollipot]

A ski mask?

Doesn't conceal body language, build, or gait.

 

[lionking]

Doesn't conceal body language, build, or gait.

Or a weapon......