In an age where identity theft is a global industry, this is purely a practical matter of identification. The only thing it is intolerant of is fraud. But the ruling is likely to be spun as many other things. "Australian state toughens law for Muslim veils," by Rod McGuirk for the Associated Press, March 4:
CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Muslim women in Australia's most populous state will have to remove veils to have their signatures officially witnessed under the latest laws giving New South Wales officials authority to look under religious face coverings.New South Wales state Attorney General Greg Smith said in a statement on Monday that beginning April 30, officials such as justices of the peace and lawyers who witness statutory declarations or affidavits without making identity checks will be fined 220 Australian dollars ($236).
The laws are a response to a notorious court case last year in which a Sydney woman was convicted of falsely claiming that a traffic policeman had attempted to remove her niqab — a veil that reveals only the eyes.
A judge overturned the conviction because the official who witnessed the false claim did not look under the veil of the person who made it, so the judge was not certain that the defendant was responsible.
The latest laws were passed Dec. 23 by the state parliament. They follow New South Wales laws passed last year that introduced a AU$5,500 ($5,900) fine for anyone who refuses to remove face coverings when requested to do so by police.
An itty-bitty baby step in the right direction. Alas, Australia, the U.S., the U.K., Canada, etc. have only made such small progresses in this regard. It must continue, at a much more aggresive pace.
Here's a giant leap in the wrong direction.
OT-Oz is in trouble, more efforts to stifle free speech
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/media-fears-for-freedom-as-watchdog-unleashed/story-e6frg996-1226287844862
"A government-commissioned report just announced plans to create a multi-million dollar super-regulator to control not just mainstream media in Australia, but websites, private blogs and even Twitter and Facebook as well!
Under this proposal, any online site that involves the "public dissemination" of information that gets more than 40 hits a day will be subject to Big Brother censorship and regulation!!!"
Free Speech Australia
http://www.freespeechaustralia.com/
Story courtesy of "Moose and Squirrel" blog
"A judge overturned the conviction because the official who witnessed the false claim did not look under the veil of the person who made it,"
Clearly that was the Islamic intent...entirely orchestrated to intimidate and befuddle the infidels and to establish Islamic dominance and authority.
"They follow New South Wales laws passed last year that introduced a AU$5,500 ($5,900) fine for anyone who refuses to remove face coverings when requested to do so by police."
A law, I hope, that is stringently enforced....and failure to pay the fine should result in immediately deportation to the Islamic paradise of Pakistan or Afghanistan, or Iran, or Yemen or Somalia....somewhere where the face coverings are an acceptable form of slavery and culture.
however if allah's whores have sexy eyes, those have to be covered up too.
http://www.yummymummyclub.ca/blogs/mummy-buzz/no-sexy-eyes-for-saudis?=mgid#k420
sword dancing with the female enslaving sauds is equal to eating their crap. Breitbart strongly defended this at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUoycVXw9ew
Coptic Cairo is blocked off from the rest of the city by a big steel gate, and by Egyptian police with automatic weapons. It’s nothing new. It’s been like this for years. But before, Islamist groups didn’t dominate the country’s parliament. Gerges said people voted for them because they were afraid that Egypt was losing its “Muslim Identify.”
Pray for Egypt in it's suffering today as Christians are scared to live.
http://www.maghrebchristians.com/2012/03/05/coptic-christians-in-egypt-fear-for-the-future-under-islamist-government/
Youssef
What the hell is this?! Ban the veil outright and institute harsh prison sentences as a deterrent to Muslim women -and their male overlords. Cultural jihad, I daresay, is worse than many felonies.
When you try to grab everything - you can end up with nothing!!
""It wasn't me under that face veil"" - then remove the veil.
This is a horrendous play on the laws.
In Saudi Arabia a woman has to be accompanied by a male - and can only now enter a bank with a male by her side [prior to this she was not allowed into them]. And men are not allowed to walk with women they are not married to or are not their mothers or sisters. [The same likely doesn't extend to cousins as it is common to marry one's cousin.] So that the whole society is structured around this ultra-sensitivity - to the visibility to the female form.
How can we realistically accommodate for this here. Whether the policeman is a man or a woman - the veiled individual must satisfy requests made for their identity.
Its all beginning to look a little Biblical - the individual hid under a veil - on a camel - in order to escape detection.
In free societies faces should be seen, both for security reasons and because covering the face takes away a good bit of a woman's identity, this second reason alone functioning as an unacceptable abuse of freedom. Islam abuses freedom in many ways and it is not indicative of an enlightened society to allow every Islamic assault on freedom on the basis that freedom demands that such assaults be allowed. Freedom is not absolute and, besides, Islam is a mortal enemy of freedom and should be treated by free peoples as such. All free societies should eventually ban what is, in effect, a cloth garbage bag covering a human being.
A step in the right direction, but it would be better if burkas were banned altogether in Western nations. Headscarfs are fine - anyone can wear one - but full face coverings are, first and foremost, a security threat.
No, it's not "racism". It's dodgy but it's not racism.
No one will be surprised to hear that this is an action by the new conservative NSW government. The former government were dhimmi leftist fools, and I'm proud to have had a small part in kicking them out in what turned out to be the biggest landslide in the history of NSW elections. Good riddance. Now to the Federal election.
Well, a long time ago, I was trained to deal severely with anyone wearing a mask if it was not Halloween or a costume party...Back then, only bad people wore masks...Now it seems, that in spite of the fact that it is generally illegal to wander around with a mask on (try going into a bank wearing one), Mahoundians and OWS rioters can do it and get away with it...It's reasonable for police or other officials to want to know who is behind the mask...
"When a person claims to be morally superior to another person on the basis of his or her race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender etc. than the person is professing a supremacism and is therefore racist".
No. Religious beliefs, sexual orientation and gender have nothing to do with race, so whatever it is, it is not racism.
Muslims claim to be morally superior to all non-Muslims, so using your definition I suppose you believe that all Muslims are racist?
Fayzal, your definition of racism is wrong, or it has been affected by PC crap. Muslims are inferior to everyone, to the extent that they follow Islam.
Hrm. Wiki has: "Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination.", but also '"Racism" and "racial discrimination" are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of their somatic (i.e., "racial") differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination."'
I prefer the original definition. I despise Nazism and Nazis, regardless of their race. Hating Nazis does not make one racist. If people want racism to also mean discrimination on ethnic and/or cultural basis - a new word should be invented IMO.
You say:
"The problem is that these Muslim women are projecting themselves as morally superior based on their mode of dressing to other women who may not adhere to the same dressing code.
In other word those Muslim women who adhere to the dress code of the Burqa are morally good and those that do not adhere are morally bad. This is racism and the Muslim women projecting this view is a racist."
This in not racism. The wearing of the Burqa and veils is mandated by Muslim males...It's one of their ways to control women and to intimidate non-believers. The more Islam moves in and Shar'ia law becomes law the more you see women's choices in whether or not to wear the Burqa and veil disappear...The women may say they have a choice, but in reality....they don't. Being forced to do something you don't really want to do is not racism it's slavery.
"The veil restricts women, it stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: ‘I do not want to be part of your society.’ Some Muslim women say that it is their choice to wear it; I don’t agree. Why would any woman living in a tolerant country freely choose to wear such a restrictive garment? What these women are really saying is that they adopt the veil because they believe that they should have less freedom than men, and that if they did not wear the veil men would not be accountable for their uncontrollable urges — so women must cover-up so as not to tempt men. What kind of a message does that send to women?”
Fayzal Mahamed wrote:
"I prefer the semantics of stating that the major part (not all parts) of philosophy of Nazism is wrong and that those Germans and only those Germans) acting on those specific Nazi beliefs were immoral."
OK, Fayzal Mahamed, this is how we at JW feel:
"I prefer the semantics of stating that the major part (not all parts) of philosophy of islam is wrong and that those muslims and only those muslims) acting on those specific islamic beliefs are immoral."
How's that?
"Exsgtbrown wrote "In other word those Muslim women who adhere to the dress code of the Burqa are morally good and those that do not adhere are morally bad. This is racism and the Muslim women projecting this view is a racist.""
Actually...you wrote that. I was just quoting you...
"In Saudi Arabia a woman has to be accompanied by a male - and can only now enter a bank with a male by her side [prior to this she was not allowed into them]."
_____________________________________________
No disrespect, but that's just not true. In Saudi, most banks have "Women's Entrances". Once inside, the women cannot be seen beyond the screens that separate them from the men. It is not required that they enter with a male relative, though many are escorted, but those men(the escorts) may not enter in the Women's Entrance. They must wait outside for their slave to reappear.
Fayzal Mahamed wrote:
"I prefer the semantics of stating that the major part (not all parts) of philosophy of Nazism is wrong and that those Germans and only those Germans) acting on those specific Nazi beliefs were immoral.""
What part or Nazism was right?
You don't understand what 'racism' means. Here's the Merriam Webster's definition.
Definition of RACISM
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
So, for example, if I say that I am superior to you (assuming we both ethnically different!) that's racism.
However, when Al Qur'an states that non-Muslims '..are the vilest of creatures' and that Muslims '..are the best of people'... that's not racism, that's hate speech. Why?
Because Muslims and non-Muslims belong to an enormous number of different races.
However, one should not that the reason why Al Qur'an makes such statements is that Islam has supremacism hard-wired into it. Christianity, on the other hand, does not.
Muslim: "Any criticism of Islam is racist".
Kafir: "OK , so what you're saying is that Islam appeals to specific racial groups. That means that when Mohammed says "Muslims are the best of people" he is making a racist statement. The desire for Muslims to prevail over the kafirs is therefore a racist ideology."
Muslim: "Errrrr, well , ummmm........."
In South Sudan, a man I met felt he was superior to me as he was a better, more devout Christian. He happened to be black and I am white, but I didn't for a moment think he was "racist", just rather "up himself" as we say here.
Dear Frazzled now you know how many of us at JW feel about your interminably long winded self-righteous and frequently garbled messages.
As usual, you are misrepresenting what another poster has said. (I was going to put 'misunderstanding', but I think you understand very well, however misrepresentation allows you to mount your fanatical 'racist' hobbyhorse.)
PJG said: ''... a man I met felt he was superior to me as he was a better, more devout Christian. He happened to be black and I am white, but I didn't for a moment think he was "racist", just rather "up himself" as we say here''
You, meretriciously, twist that by changing the *words* completely, and therefore their meaning.
There is absolutely no correlation between ''a man I met felt he was superior to me as he was a better, more devout Christian.'' And your version : "In South Africa, a man I met felt he was superior to me as he was a white man.''
PJG was pointing out that people often have different reasons for supposing themselves superior to others - to believe oneself superior to another on grounds of being ''a better, more devout Christian'' may be conceited, but certainly isn't 'racist'.
Troll:
"I'm not convinced by your arguments to claim that the superiority of Christian to another Christian based on his devotion is any different from the superiority of a white man based on the color of his white skin."
________________________________________
Man! Give it a rest! You're sounding like a blatant racist!
Otherwise, just admit you hate white dudes - white, Catholic Christian dudes, especially.
____________________________________
Just admit it, apologize for it, and we'll "forgive" you...
Australia: Women in face veils will have to remove them to have their signatures officially witnessed in gov't offices
.................................
One small step towards sanity...
Fayzal mahamed wrote:
I have till now not seen a single person getting injured or killed by "PC crap".
......................................
Then I submit that you have not been paying attention.
When Major Nidal Malik Hasan increasingly made his views endorsing Jihad violence known and no one challenged him or even flagged his behavior out of a fear of being considered "Islamophobic", he was free to massacre fourteen of his fellow service people when he went on a shooting spree at Ft. Hood, Texas in 2009.
When Americans and other coalition troops bow to Shari'ah norms and feel they have to pretend that Afghan police and Army are "allies", they open themselves up to fatal attacks from these people. The body count is pretty high at this point—two more American officers were just murdered by an Afghan Jihadist who—absurdly—had been given a high security clearance.
Europeans are increasingly falling victim to crime—especially rape—from unregulated Muslim immigration. And the native European population is not supposed to complain, or even to notice, lest they be considered "Islamophobic" or "racist". In Oslo, *every single case of rape over the past five years has been committed by an immigrant*.
I can cite hundreds of more cases.
"PC crap"—however well-intentioned it may have been initially—can indeed be harmful or even fatal when it completely disarms us before a threat as serious as Jihad.
graven, why are you wasting time with this mohammedan troll? He's an absolute moron. There's no substance there whatsoever, just a lot of verbal run-around. Cut him loose.
You are quite right, CGW. I'm not really responding to him directly most of the time at this point.
My replies are mostly meant for the decent people reading here who might be inclined to take his grotesque comments seriously. After all, he first appeared here on JW last fall in the guise of an Anti-Jihadist.
By the way, it is good to see you posting here again. (OT, but I've been having trouble with my email and so am far behind in my correspondence.)
I'm here every single day. I just don't post that often as everyone usually gets around to the salient points of a topic without me. Every once in awhile, if something really chaps my a$$, I can't resist . . .