The headline for this story on the Yahoo home page reads, “Proposed new anti-Muslim law causes stir in Australia”. In a nutshell, the law requires Muslim women to remove their veils for the purpose of identification by police on request.
How is this “anti-Muslim”, exactly? Wouldn’t a law, or even a procedural guideline, prohibiting police from making a visual I.D. of veiled women be an instance of rather extravagant favoritism? How else are police to do their jobs when a positive identification is essential? Besides, I didn’t think veils were a hard and fast rule in Islam. The clamor against the law strikes me as another attempt by Muslims – aided and abetted by their non-Muslim fellow-travelers – to fight assimilation and expand and strengthen their cultural ghettos in western countries.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Yahoo doesn't understand the difference between anti-crime and anti-Muslim. The Aussies don't allow folks to wear masks in the bank either. If a officer asked a someone to take off their mardi gra mask, would that be wrong?
It's not like the Aussies are trying to see her ankle or something. In the end, it's their rules or get on the next boat out.
Bet they miss John Howard. I do.
Deborah Leigh
The woman who signed the document had worn a burqa and a justice of the peace who witnessed the signing had not looked beneath the veil to confirm her identity.
You know, they could keep that from happening by passing a law that makes the Muslim woman have to show her face when....
Oh, wait...
I'm being culturally insensitive!
Damn me.
*
“Proposed new anti-Muslim law causes stir in Australia”
No it doesn't, didn't, won't.
Yahoo are just fishing, trying to stir one up.
Stir? What stir? This sensibly covers balaclavas and full face motorcycle helmets. The media hasn't even managed to round up the usual token maniac "muslim" spokesman to complain.
Can the cops get compensation if they go blind?
Post a Comment