Burqa Versus The Motorcycle Helmet.

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6420433/Man-burqa-woman-motorcycle-helmet-walk-Melbourne-ANZ-bank-test-political-correctness.html

[SparklyKid]

Remind me Spath, how many agree with your view on this thread ?

[spathiphyllum]

What is my view?

[SparklyKid]

Some daft argument about any similarity between a crash helmet and a burqa, most obtuse.

[youngmafbog]

Oh dear, the usual rubbish being spouted from some.

Ban the burqa is what I say. If you want to wear something from medieval times then go live in a backward country that likes it.

[SparklyKid]

I will vote for that young,lol.

[ludwig]

I wonder what the policy is on those terrorist balaclavas. The black woolly ones with the two eyeholes.

[spathiphyllum]

"Some daft argument about any similarity between a crash helmet and a burqa, most obtuse."

I'm unsure how that is considered obtuse but everyone is allowed their perception.

[hereIam]

My goodness, the burka is an ugly, ugly garment. Imagine actually wanting to wear that as some do !

[naomi24]

Danny, //what about my standards, which I must admit have to be lowered to match some of the posters on AB.//

Why do you feel the need to lower your standards in order to match those who think it’s acceptable for anyone wearing the Muslim uniform to be given preferential treatment? That’s not only devoid of principle - it’s irrational.

[Deskdiary]

I love this story.

Any spin placed on this is entirely misguided and misplaced - the simple, inescapable fact, is that this is an enormous double standard.

[New Judge]

Without denigrating your argument, let’s have a look at it, spathi.

AOG’s article demonstrated that a wearer of a crash helmet is told to remove it before entering a bank whilst the wearer of a religious face mask isn’t. Firstly you tried to defend this by suggesting that “A helmet is defence.. implying some is needed.. a burqua isn't... implying some isn't...”.

Not quite sure what you mean by that. Neither is needed inside the bank.

So then you changed tack: “It's kind of illegal to force someone to take off their clothes when going into a building.. .A helmet though, i mean that's like taking a hat off.”

I pointed out to you that it is neither illegal nor unreasonable to ask someone to show their face in a bank and also gave examples of where people were required “to take off their clothes”.

So now we come to this:

“my point is, even though they're only going for the face covered angle, there is much more to the burqa than that, and to only take that away from it is ignorance.”

And you move towards suggesting that Muslim women cannot uncover their faces without undressing entirely:

“NJ, i'm talking about a full body gown,…”

The requirement being discussed is to uncover the face. If these garments are such that to uncover the face means removing the entire thing then they are even more ridiculous than I imagined. If there is such a requirement (and I am led to believe, though cannot be sure, that there is not) the question arises “how does the wearer eat and drink?” Must they undress entirely to have a glass ow water? I think not.

This question is about the difference in treatment between a person wearing a crash helmet and a one wearing a face mask when entering a bank. You have tried to defend the latter by firstly suggesting the two are unrelated and then by citing practical problems with the face mask that in all probability do not exist. I would suggest that even if they do the women involved need to make arrangements to be able to comply with reasonable requests that everybody else is asked to comply with.

[spathiphyllum]

"Neither is needed inside the bank. "

I think a woman's religious gown is needed when ever they are in public.. And i think only they can decide what is needed to keep their dignity and religious practise.

My comments regarding a helmet being defence, is more that applicable. It is its main purpose. The gowns main purpose isn't just to keep a face covered, it's much deeper than that.

[spathiphyllum]

If it was motorbike helmet vs balaclava, i would undersatand, but it is not. It is deeper than "oh it's just a face covering". It's not.

Alternatively, if a motorbike helmet was part of someones religious practise, it would make the situation similar. But alas. So the two can not compare.

[naomi24]

spath, the 'gown' is irrelevant. Stop with the 'gown'. No one is talking about the 'gown'. The woman in the motor bike helmet wasn't talking about the 'gown'. The simple fact is if one is required to expose her face, then the other should also be required to expose her face. It's that simple.

[spathiphyllum]

Well the bank clearly doesn't have a face covering policy, else burqas and head scarfs would be banned. it's more a, can you take your crash helmet off unless you're expecting some head damage during your stay here policy.

[spathiphyllum]

which in a bank, would imply a robbery. I'd be much more threatened of a woman in a crash helmet than a man in a head scarf covering his face but then again i aint a racist am i ayy!

[naomi24]

Don't be ridiculous.

[Deskdiary]

^^^It really is that simple. Couldn't be simpler.

So I'm struggling to understand why a certain individual cannot grasp something as simple as this.

[Deskdiary]

My response was to Naomi's post at 17.04.

[naomi24]

Deskdiary, I think there are a few here suffering the same problem.