Bank Security – Hijabs and Burqas

A lot of Aussies want the Burqa banned for many different reasons, but probably the most used reason is because it poses a security risk in a Government building, such as a bank.

As touched on previously, a bank robber will cover their face anyway – they have no need to choose a burqa over a balaclava – it will result in the same outcome. They will evade detection from security cameras. The balaclava is the smarter choice as it allows easier movement and more peripheral vision. (That’s a free tip to all you aspiring bank robbers out there!).

We decided to actually ask a bank employee what the deal was with burqas in banks. What a novel idea! Seeing as though banks ban the wearing of other coverings such as motorcycle helmets and balaclavas, it hardly seems fair that Muslim women (known for thousands of bank robberies in Australia) are allowed to wear their religious dress in a secular country of all places!

(From an experienced Commonwealth Bank employee in Australia):

“OK first of all motor bike helmets are ‘out’. The reason being is that a helmet is a removable item. It has no religious or cultural purpose other than to save lives.

A hat that has a ‘bug cover’ is also ‘out’ due to the same reasons as above. We ask them to lift the front over their face when we speak to them. There are no bugs in the bank.

Customers that cover their hair or face for religious or cultural reasons are fine in bank security standards. Why? Because firstly the bank deals with people from all over the world and believe it or not, appreciates diversity. We have equal opportunity training regularly to ensure that all employees understand cultural sensitivities. A woman can enter a bank completely covered (except for her eyes) and that is acceptable. Why? Because we have measures in place to ensure ‘safety’ to all customers. Banks are fitted with security video and staff are regularly trained in safety procedures from lock-downs to body language recognition.

All of that aside, employees at our branch of the CBA have more trouble with ‘yobbos’ than anyone else. A man or woman from Sudan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China or India are generally far more polite, willing to offer secondary ID when asked or when responding to requests from bank staff.

The CBA is a ‘safe’ place that respects the numerous aspects of Australia and its peoples. Rules are in place for employees and customer safety but never for discrimination based on race, religion or culture. In fact I know for a fact that ‘my bank’ is always looking for multilingual, multicultural employees to ensure customer satisfaction.

As I said earlier, we have people from all walks of life entering our bank. There is no difference between a bikini clad twenty something to a fully clad forty something. Ultimately someone will be offended. Is it a security risk? No.

All passport photos are taken with the face uncovered. If we need photo ID of this sort for any purpose at all, this is always presented. If the woman does not want to show a male employee (which has never happened while I have worked at CBA), a female employee is always available to view the photo ID. Thus ensuring safety, bank security and respecting cultural standards.”

Would you let these guys into a bank? It is well documented that the KKK covered their faces because they had intent to commit crime. Even though they claimed to represent Christianity, their dress wasn’t a religious requirement or custom.

52 thoughts on “Bank Security – Hijabs and Burqas

  1. So, any bank robber will want to choose a face covering that is “politically correct” rather than one that’s not. By letting people in wearing burqas, you are discriminating… against non-Muslim motorcyclists. And robbers know this now. I wonder what Muslims would think if a cancer patient who is non-Muslim, waltzed into a mosque and blew herself up wearing a burqa. When the USA first invaded Afghanistan and burqas were shown on TV, I instantly thought of the idea of special forces people using the same disguise for some black ops. If this seppo can think of it, so can criminals.

    • I heard a parallel argument recently – that helping a disabled person who was also a disabled carer was discriminating against the able bodied. We were informed the person who had said that’s job was in danger – it is of course in contradiction of Australian and international law.
      Maybe you should educate yourself on just what unjust discrimination is. Or maybe you would prefer to stay ignorant and whine about how the disabled and elderly get special treatment and how you should get the best parks instead even tho to them it is the only way they can access the facility at all and to you it is 5 seconds and good for your health.

  2. I am not surprised at the lack of understanding from some people. I agree with points from both sides, yet i feel this site somewhat villifies a small percentage of the Australian community. In my experience, there are as many people with underinformed opinions and offencive ideals as there are people practising islam. As per your site’s statistic … around 1.8%. This is a tiny percentage of our population and not a valid epression of the general Australian outlook. In truth, we are a very accepting and open country… despite our rather backward immagration standards. It is fair for people to feel fear with the unfamiliar, the key is to get them better acquainted with real everyday things that are different.

    Is this site designed to make a mountain out of a mole hill? I personally find it unspeakably offencive when someone or some group is judged on the basis of religious practise, race or personal choice. However, I feel this site may be risking making these bogan minded, undereducated, fear filled people into marters.
    There will always be people who don’t know things and are therefore scared by the possibilities of the unkown.
    I did really enjoy your writing though. I do personally like a good slag off of racist fuckwits… however, I do it in my own home, with like-minded people whom I respect and trust.
    THanks very much, I haven’t read so much blogging in a while.
    A

  3. OK first of all motor bike helmets are ‘out’. The reason being is that a helmet is a removable item. It has no religious or cultural purpose other than to save lives.

    That’s pathetic! What is ‘cultural’ or ‘religious’ Is subjective! I may have my own personal belief that wearing a motorbike helmet will send me to heaven.

    You ban face coverings or you don’t ban them. You don’t pick and choose who gets to wear them or not.

    • I am sure if you can demonstrate a religious, or medical reason to wear a helmet you will be allowed to do so. Kids with head banging issues or people missing part of their skull certainly can.
      But being too much of a self absorbed prick to understand a fair go is neither a disability nor a religion.

      • Why should religion be an excuse? It is a completely voluntary choice to make. It is being a member of a group. That shouldn’t give one special rights to break the law or have benefits put into the law for membership of a group.

        • Because we are a democratic country that practices freedom of religion and recognises that strongly and truly held beliefs are NOT a simple matter of choice. We are a country of a fair go for all. We do not, unlike Uganda, or England of old, or the IS, enforce philosophical or religious choices on other people.
          If you dont like it – I once again suggest you f**k off to a country that does not have such practices – maybe Uganda will suit.

        • Your comments are contradictory. By giving religions special status and protecting them you are not having a fair go for all.

          And while people might not be free to believe things, they are free to choose to follow those beliefs or not.
          It doesn’t matter how strongly held a belief is, people still have a choice to follow the laws of a religion or not.

          And freedom of religion shouldn’t mean religions get special status and people are free to break rules because of their religion.

          I am not suggesting religion should be forced upon people. I am saying religion should be recognised for what it is, a group of people who follow a certain ideology by their own choosing.
          Religions should have no more rights than the KKK.

          In order to have a fair go for all religions or the followers of religion should receive no special rights. Making exceptions on religious grounds is being unfair.

        • you really dont understand the concept of fair do you. Denying everyone food equally while equal is not fair. Putting stairs in is not fair to disabled people despite being the same for everyone. Feeding you food you are allergic to while equal for all would not be fair for you. The fact you have no respect for human rights just shows that you are not interested in fair – you are a psychopath who needs someone to hurt

        • Yes. I do understand the concept of fair. You don’t.
          Yes. Denying everyone food equally isn’t fair.
          But just giving food to some people isn’t fair either.

          Similarly, building a ramp and then refusing to allow able bodied people to use it and instead forcing them to take stairs isn’t fair.

          And no, I am for human rights. The people here seem to be against human rights.
          Giving people special privileges because of their religion go against human rights.
          Religion is not some special right that must be protected, I don’t give a damn what others say. This is also made apparent by people fighting against those that are simply following their religion like members of ISIS. Pretty much the whole world accepts that practically, you don’t have the right to do whatever your religion says.

          The “right” to follow your religion is merely an extension of your right to liberty and it comes with various responsibilities.

          What people should be looking at is if people have the right to cover their heads/faces, including in secure locations.

          If so, everyone should have that right.
          If not, no one should have that right.
          Giving some people that right but not others is not fair.

        • So Jeffrey, no religion should have special considerations. Right, got it.

          so I suppose you’ll be working on Christmas day then? Or do you support religious benefits when you benefit from them?

          “people are free to break rules because of their religion.”

          And again-what rules are women wearing burqas breaking? Be specific-which laws are they not following?

        • You cant seriously be so stupid you believe the monumental pile of bull you just spouted can you? That giving people accomodation for their beliefs or abilities isnt a fair go? So we should Be chaining you to a stake for that pagan symbol you are using should we – because that is exactly what you want t do to muslims? And while christians get their holidays off – your ‘fair go’ means that they should be the only ones – everyone gets the same days – nevermind if they need different days. And everybody should have to eat the same things of course. Never mind if it is repulsive to them taste or ethics wise- they will live. And everyone should have the same car – no matter their size or the trips they need to do or the distance or terrain they need to travel. Everyone should fit into the same size of clothes. And the same shoes
          Are you really so stupid and small minded you cant tell the difference between treating everybody the same and treating everybody equally?
          EVERYBODY gets special treatment – thats what a fair go IS for gods sake – we treat people in a manner that helps THEM, that brings out the best in THEM. You dont give somebody struggling in english extra math classes if they are the top in math, even if everybody else needs them. You dont send people to shower a disabled person who just needs help with their house.
          Quit being such a cretin and actually think for god’s (whatever your god is, if you have one) sake.

        • Are you really that stupid that you can’t comprehend the argument?

          How does stating that people shouldn’t recieve special benefits for their religion equate to chaining them to a stake?

          How does it equate to only Chrsitians getting time off on pagan holidays like Christmas and Easter? Even if you foolishly accept them as Christian, it still doesn’t make sense.
          What would be a fair comparison there is that no one gets special time off just because of their religion.

          As for giving accommodation for beliefs, would that include beliefs like those from the KKK?

          And what I am saying is nothing like everyone needs to eat the same thing and drive the same car and so on.

          And perhaps you should try thinking before you say things. It will stop you saying such utter crap.

        • You really are monumentally demented if you cant see the parallels. YOu are an egocentric ethnocentric moron and there is clearly no point trying to educate you as you dont care about truth, only your halfwitted cock-eyed porapaganda

        • No. I’m not demented, and I do care about the truth.

          If you provide a rational argument, you can convince me. If instead you just spout garbage and insults, you won’t convince me.

          I can see the parallels. But they are not going the way you want.

          Chaining some people to a stake and not others is parallel to prohibiting some people from covering their head or face in a bank and not others.

          You are supporting exactly what you claim I am trying to do.

          So perhaps you should go look in a mirror before you go calling someone else demented or blind or unable to be educated.

        • Well, I don’t know about you, but when a calls someone who disagrees with them “morons” and “stupid” that instantly makes me think their beliefs have merit.

          “How does it equate to only Chrsitians getting time off on pagan holidays like Christmas and Easter? Even if you foolishly accept them as Christian, it still doesn’t make sense.”

          Wait, are you saying that Easter and Christmas are not actually Christian holidays? Yes, I’m aware the relationship they have with previous pagan festivals, but are you actually saying “Hey-these holidays where millions of Christians go to church and commemorate-not actually Christian holidays”? Is that what you’re actually saying?

          And are you denying you get the benefit of these Christian (Or in your belief, pagan) celebrations? Are you in favour of these benefits?

          And I repeat, what laws have women wearing niqabs and burqas broken? Please be specific, naming the Act. Unless you’re going to go back to saying “They’re just breaking social rules, which are defined by me, but all must follow”

          And while we’re at it, have you managed to say how women wearing niqabs have harmed you in any way? I mean, the best you’ve said is “Well, it hurts me because I can’t dress as a KKK member”-except you are allowed to wear a burqa….so really you have the same rights.

          In fact, I’ll ask you directly. Are you allowed to wear a burqa and niwab, just as a Muslim woman can? IF you are both allowed to wear the same clothes, how can you say others have an advantage?

        • Do you understand the difference between excuse and reason? Why should it be respected? because that is a basic human right – to be able to practice your sincerely held beliefs where they do not impinge on another’s rights. MANY accommodations have been made in law for Christianity – why should we not ive the same respect to other beliefs?

        • Yes. I do understand the difference between excuse and reason.

          There is no reason to allow some members of the general public to enter secure areas with the head/face covered but not others.
          Instead all you have are excuses, where you claim some people can because of their religion while others can’t because they don’t follow that religion.

          That is not an answer. That is basically saying it should be respected because it should be respected.
          If freedom of religion was a fundamental human right then far fewer people would be opposing Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS.

          It all comes down to the right to liberty.

          People should be able to do as they please as long as it doesn’t impinge on another’s rights.
          That isn’t anything special for religions.

          This means people should be able to have their head/face covered as long as it doesn’t impinge on another’s rights. That applies regardless of what religion someone is following.

          As such, if people can do that in a bank, their religion shouldn’t matter. If anyone can cover their face in a bank, everyone should be free to.

          My point isn’t that we should just not make accommodations for Muslims. My point is no accommodation should be made on the grounds of a religion and then only given to people of that religion.

          Any time an issue like that comes up, the issue should be evaluated and people should determine if the restriction is justified. If it is, it should apply regardless of ones religious beliefs. If instead people think that an accommodation can be made then it should be deemed unjustified and it should not apply regardless of ones religious beliefs.

          Doing otherwise is a violation of fundamental human rights as you would no longer be treating people equally.

  4. So how would you be able to identify a bank robber wearing a burka if he got away ? How is a burka different to a balaclava in terms of being able to identify the person wearing it ? Why should security be compromised because of religious beliefs ?

  5. By claiming to not discriminate, they are discriminating.

    If you allow people to cover their face for religious reasons you are discriminating on the basis of religion.

    For the rules to not be discriminating, it would be simple, either you can cover your face or you are not permitted to.

    Having it as “You are not permitted to cover your face except for religious reasons” is discriminating on the basis of religion.

    Discriminating on the basis of religion doesn’t mean being mean or offensive to people who follow a religion or making them break their religious rules. It means treating people who follow a religion different to people who follow another religion or who don’t follow a religion or treating religious items differently to non-religious items or items from another religion.

    This means that in order to not discriminate on the basis of religion rules cannot appeal to a religion, and that if a rule does appeal to a religion it is discriminating on the basis of religion.

    Also, if you have the security measures in place, why bother asking people to remove their helmet or a bug net or a balaclava? Are you just trying to piss people off? Or do you realise that you don’t have sufficient security measures in place and just don’t want to piss off the religious?

    • How many veiled Muslim women actually physically use banks in these days of online banking? Virtually none, and only a handful of women wear the niqab anyway.

      On the other hand Niqi Folkes and his bestie Sergio love frocking up in what they imagine Muslim women wear.

      This blog post is almost five years old. You had your chance when it was first put up. So piss off and take your straw man arguments elsewhere.

  6. Jeffery, how can one be discriminated against without having been forced into a disadvantageous circumstance based on gender, ethinicity, creed, sexuality or physical or intellectual capacity? Being asked to remove a Bughat or Motorbike helmet inside a bank or petrol station does not disadvantage an individual in any way that could legitimately constitute discrimination. The motivation is not from prejudice or in effort to limit the freedom of, or cause disadvantage to, any individual out of malice or spite or because of their race, religion or their inherent capabilities.

    There is no functional necessity to wear such articles inside a bank, however those who practice religious belief that require them to wear specific articles of clothing (or items) in public, or to wear them for certain amounts of time (as dictated by said religious texts) do have such a necessity, and thus why preventing them equal access constitutes discrimination. Freedom of expression and religion are both legislated Federally. So unless you can prove, convincingly, that having been asked to remove your hat or helmet upon entering a bank has somehow limited your freedom of expression or disadvantaged you because of your faith (or sex, sexuality, autonomous capacity, etc..) then you have not been discriminated against.

    And no, such rules of entry do not “discriminate on the basis of religion”, what I assume you mean is that such rules ” discriminate in favour of the religious”, or in other words, you believe this to be a form of “reverse discrimination”. Well, in order for it to be so you would still have to prove how you were legitimately disadvantaged because Muslim Women and Sikh Males are allowed to wear their articles of faith within a bank while you are required to remove functionally inappropriate and unnecessary articles while in said bank.

    • Being asked (or required) to remove something while others are permitted to wear it is discrimination.

      Either there is sufficient reason to ask people to remove it and thus the religious should also have to remove it, or there is no, and thus they have no right asking anyone to remove it.

      Allowing them to ask the non-religious to remove it while allowing the religious to keep it on is discrimination.

      I am suggesting equal access, what you want is privileged access, where being religious gives them privileges.
      Equal access would be no one is allowed to cover their faces or anyone can, not different rules for different people and/or different coverings.

      There is no necessity in religion. Religion is not a necessity, it is a personal choice. It cannot make something necessary. It is not necessary to wear any religious garment.
      All are just as functionally inappropriate and unnecessary as bike helments, bug hats, balaclavas, etc.

      It is restricting freedoms, as I am not free to wear what I please. It is disadvantaging me because of me not following those religions.

      And you are aware discrimination in favour of the religious is discrimination on the basis of religion?

      Or are you one of those morons that think you can only discriminate against minorities, or that discrimination must be denying one group a right that everyone else has or the like?

      If a bank decided to ban wearing blue, but made an exception for white people, would that be okay, or would that be discrimination?

      • Summary of your post – “I really hate Muslims but I am going to pretend I don’t by trying to craft a seemingly rational argument with good spelling and punctuation about niqab

        Hate to disappoint you but these days when we scent the foe we don’t engage. Not worth the trouble.

      • It is pathetic that you know full well at least that “discrimination must be denying one group a right that everyone else has” and yet try to deny it. Discrimination is anything that unfairly disadvantages one person much more than it does others.Thats how the UN defines it, thats how the human rights and equal opportunity commission defines it, to define it any other way is puerile game playing.
        But let give you a couple of examples even you can understand.
        Stairs discriminate against the mobility impaired because they cant use them. Disabled parks dont discriminate against the able bodied, because the able bodied can use a part further away or one that isnt as wide, where the mobility impaired cannot use the facility at all unless they use a disabled park. Hence it is giving them equal access to the facility. ‘Or are you one of these morons’ that whines about disabled parking too?
        Just like the disabled need to have ramps, elevators and disabled parks to be able to access the facility AT ALL, muslim women from certain belief systems need to be able to wear the hijab or niqab or they cannot access the facility AT ALL. To deny them that would not be fair. A biker can sling his helmet under his arm and suffer little if any inconvenience. A muslim woman cannot. Nor can a nun.
        Creating an environment where people feel unwelcome is also discrimination. Like putting up naked picture of women would make women feel unwelcome in a workplace, and naked pictures of men would make men feel uncomfortable, wolf whistling at people etc. Pretty obvious. So making adverse comments about somebody’s religion is pretty obviously discrimination too. Singling people out because of their attire is also discrimination whether it be a dress, a bikini or a burqa.

        Of course you can discriminate in other ways, so what makes these examples unacceptable discrimination? They are because of things that are intrinsic and concrete within a person. The colour of their skin, their religion, their gender, their sexual preference. Things that are impossible or near impossible to change. Things core to your identity.
        Of course – if you dont like it you are 100% welcome to f**k off to a country that doesnt believe in a fair go and leave my Australia to real Australians.

    • They could, they could also use trained staff and private rooms to confirm identity if removing one’s religious garment in public is a breach of an indivdual’s beliefs, although that may have more substantial costs thanthan using fingerprint scanning technology. However fringerprint techonology as it’s own draw backs in terms of privacy of information and capacity of business to mitigate the risk of that information being access illegally for malicious or nefarious purposes.

    • That has the issue of having everyone being fingerprinted with a database the bank can access to verify your identity, which comes with all sorts of privacy issues.

      • So are you such a Luddite you need to physically enter a bank? I doubt it.

        Why would you bother going to a bank when you have online banking, you can apply online for a loan, you have ATMs and you can even withdraw from the supermarket?

        I guess you are probably up to no good if you need to enter a bank with a helmet covering your face. Since bank robbers are almost all male I think we are very close to the mark.

        So are you a bank robber?

  7. So I’m the ‘Moron’ because you can’t offer up an explanantion on how you, for having been requested to remove your helmet or hat, have been disadvantaged? While you have simultaneously been unable to recognise that from the eyes and belief of a religious individual, that wewring specific gsrments and articles, in accordance to following their faith is a necessity to them? Puh-lease Jeff, you’re full of shit.

    If you haven’t been disadvantaged then you haven’t been discriminated against. This is ethical philosophy 101. If you had been forced to shave you beard before being allowed to use the bank, while another individual was allowed to keep their because of their religious beliefs, then maybe you would have a case for claiming to be discriminated against. But just because you cannot wear an article of clothing that covers the majority of your head and face inside the building does not continstute you being disadvantaged at all, at worst you’ve been inconvenienced momentarily for having to carry your helmet and hat while inside. On the other spectrum having a Muslim Women remove her Nijab, Hijab or Burqa is more than an inconvenience, as it may directly contravene aspects of here faith in regards to modesty in public, that is a legitimate disadvantage to a Muslim Women. Sikh Men have a similar issue with turbans and ceremonial daggers.

    Do you have any significant religious or philosophical reasons as to why you must be allowed to wear a hat or helmet inside, in public, or for the majority of the day? No? So how exactly is being requested to remove such articles disadvantaging you? How does having to removing these articles diminish your equal access to the banking facilities Jeff? If Sikh and Muslim faithful were required to remove their garments and articles of faith then they would not be able to use such facilities as a matter of adherence to their religious beliefs, that would diminish their capacity to equal access of these facilities. Being asked to remove your hat or helmet does not limit your access to these facilities in any comparable way.

    So once again, how exactly have you been disadvantaged by having to remove a hat or helmet while using a bank? And if you haven’t been legitimately disadvantaged how exactly have you been discriminated against?

    • I have already explained how I am disadvantaged, you just don’t want to admit it.
      It is removing a liberty.
      It wouldn’t be removing my equal access to banking, just like it wouldn’t be removing a Muslim’s by demanding they show their face.
      It is the removal of the liberty to wear what you please.

      Religion is a personal choice. There is no necessity. And if they really feel they can’t, then they have a simple option, don’t go places that would require them to violate their beleifs, e.g. anywhere they need to show their face.
      They have a choice, follow their beliefs, or go to the bank.

      Otherwise, why shouldn’t I be able to believe I should cover my face in the bank and have that belief respected? It is just as valid as any of the crap that comes from religion. And that way I would be forced to either violate my beliefs or not use the bank.

      • Jeffrey, you aren’t disadvantaged. IF you or any man wants to wear a burqa or niqab you are completely allowed to.

        How is it removal of a liberty for you when you have the same rights as Muslim women?

    • One thing you seem to have forgotten. Disabled people have a disability. They have no choice in the matter.
      Religious people do.

      Giving people the choice to obey their religion or not enter a location is not discrimination.

      The disabled have no choice. Muslim women do. Obey the commands of their hate-cult, or remove their head dress.

      What is a more applicable analogy is a member of the KKK refusing to sit next to a black person. Is it acceptable to move the black person to give the Klan member equal access? No.

      They have a choice. Either obey the rules of society, or follow their religion. Them choosing to follow their religion preventing them from accessing parts of society is not discrimination. It is their choice.

      And making adverse comments about a terrorist hate-cult is not discrimination. Just like making adverse comments about terrorist organisations or racist organisations and so on.

      If you want that to be classified as discrimination and shouldn’t be allowed then you must accept that Islam and numerous other religions are discriminatory and shouldn’t be allowed.

      • You mention rules a lot, but it’s clear you don’t mean legal laws, because Muslim women are not breaking any laws, you mention “social rules”

        What are “Social rules”? Who decides them?

        • How about the rules discussed in the OP? The ones regarding covering your face when you enter a bank or the like?

        • Be specific. Tell me clearly what laws they are breaking. You complain that women aere allowed to cover their faces when they enter a bank, but the law allows them to do this, and to be clear as this article shows, the banks are happy with this, and do not object at all.

          No, wait, I forgot, they aren’t breaking “legal laws” they’re breaking “social rules” which hare defined by…..who exactly? I ask again, define social rules, and tell me who gets to decide them.

        • And what I am saying is that exceptions are made to laws on the basis of religion. This is unfair and discriminatory.

          Would you like a law that said only white people can cover their faces in banks? Or only white people can sit at the front of the bus?

        • And again-what laws are they breaking? You keep on saying “They don’t follow the law” but have no idea what laws there are. This is because these laws do not exist, except as “social rules” you’ve invented.

          ‘This is unfair and discriminatory.”

          How is it unfair when you have the exact same rights, ie to wear a burqa. There is no law preventing you from wearing a burqa.

          “Would you like a law that said only white people can cover their faces in banks? Or only white people can sit at the front of the bus?”

          Nope, but thankfully that is irrelevant.

          If there was a law saying “Only muslim women are allowed to wearing religious garb that obscures their face and no one else” that would be discriminatory. You would be right to complain.

          But that, again, is not what’s happening. If you choose to wear a burqa, you can. Look at the idiots in the Freedom party who went around wearing a niqab-none were arrested, as they didn’t break the law.

          So again, define social rules that you think Muslims are breaking, and tell me who gets to define social rules? Third time now I’ve asked this question, and everytime you try to ignore it, because the reality is your social laws are pretty much “I think the world should be run this way” which, while fine, has no more power, nor a greater obligation upon others to follow than anyone else’s “social rules”

        • Oh yes, now we’re hearing “I’ve already answered your questions” – no you haven’t, but let’s pretend you had-what prevents you from answering them again? This isn’t twitter.

          Yuo have said repeatedly that women wearing niqabs and burqas are breaking the law. I have asked you what laws, and your best answer is “the law that tells people to remove helmets when they enter banks” – a law that does not apply to religious garb and never has. So women are not breaking it.

          Instead you say they are breaking social rules, but despite multiple chances to define social rules, and state who declares social rules, you have chosen not to. Because social rules vary greatly between people and therefore can at best be a rule a person expects of themselves, not of others.

          When you fail to present any laws that women who wear niqabs or burkas are breaking, you declare they have special religious benefits, while happily accepting the religious benefits you claim for yourself. You also state it is unfair which is incorrect when you are also allowed to wear a burqa and niqab.

          You have presented nothing, and avoided everything. Your oft repeated arguments do not stand up to any scrutiny, or questioning at all. If you are used to arguments only receiving blind acceptance in your mind without any question….well that is a problem now, isn’t it?

        • It isn’t a law to remove helmets. It is a requirement to show your face, yet on the basis of religion, exceptions are made. I already explained that. I wont waste more time on your ignorance or dishonesty.

        • So it’s not a law at all, so Muslim people are not breaking laws.

          I wish you’d be consistent. Muslim-are they breaking laws-yes or no? If yes, what laws are they breaking-mention the act.

          If no, and you’re going to say they are breaking “social rules”-then define what social rules are, and who gets to define social rules for an entire country.

          Fifth time now.

        • Well, without such greater speakers and communicators as Jacqui Lambie, Cory Bernardi and Jeffrey on board, I can’t see why a niqab ban has been unable to get support. Completely astounds me!

  8. Islam only requests believers to dress modestly – read the book – ask an Imam – it is not a religious requirement it is a choice of either the wife or the demand of the man

  9. The question appears to be “Should a burka be banned in a bank”? You guys seem to have got sidetracked talking about whether it is against the current laws and bank policy.

    I was once a bank teller and am still uncomfortable around people covering their faces.

    Muslims did not enter banks with a face covering way back in those days so it was not an issue back then.
    Regardless of the current bank policy and the view of one bank teller, I personally would press the alarm as soon a woman covering her face walked in, as I see no difference between a hoodie and sunglasses or a motorcycle helmet and another face covering, including a burka.

    It might be that the teller you asked gave you the view of the bank rather a personal opinion.
    Unless you have been a teller and have gone through four violent bank robberies, you probably will not understand.

    Saying that no muslim women have robbed banks in jest is pointless, as the robber covered might not actually be a muslim woman… just as robbers wearing helmets were not motorcycle riders and those wearing bandannas were not cowboys and those wearing balaclavas were not special forces and so on….

  10. Must be a long time since you worked in a bank. Took your time responding too – almost 7 years.

    Since the person gave us what is basically bank policy I think we’ll stick with the bank employee we spoke to originally.

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s