The Queensland Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of "religious belief or religious activity;"

So, the Qld Government is free to legislate against all and every face covering thing so long as it is a prohibition against EVERY Queenslander.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 2:33pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 13^th, 2018 at 1:12pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:


Unless you're a cheese-eating stool-dweller who flew here.

Aussie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 3:10pm:


Of course there is not. Just like there is not anything contained within legislation relating to right to wear priest garments, the right to read the bible. These are all part of the right to religion, in other words they are what make up and complete a religion. Just like the wearing of the Burqa makes up Islam.

Karnal wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 11:49pm:



Wearing shoes is universal and thus that particular action doesn't distinguish nor categorise one by their religion. Wearing a burqa does however distinguish a Muslim from an individual practising another religion. The wearing of the burqa is affirmed by religious doctrine and the various texts that are utilised within Islam. It is a profession of faith. Just like monks profess their faith toward Buddha and the Buddhist religion through garments and certain rituals and rules.

Karnal wrote on Aug 14^th, 2018 at 5:05pm:


Apparently the UK has that very law - that prohibits people from being forced to wear something against their will.

Impractical? Perhaps, but Britain is at least trying to uphold freedom of expression/freedom of religion - while dealing with the oppression issue.

When the Belgium ban came in, its said there were something like 30 muslim women in the whole country who wore a full face covering. There are similarly miniscule numbers in the Netherlands Its absurd. You could literally keep a file on every one of them to ensure they are not being oppressed (if thats what you are really worried about - which we know most proponents are not). These figures should tell you all you need to know about what behind this ban.

goldkam wrote on Aug 15^th, 2018 at 8:40am:


True, but it's not a prerequisite for being a Muslim.

The Soviets had a similar issue when they banned circumcision for Jews. There, it was the opposite: they were banning a religious practice.

They allowed circumcision for Muslims as they deemed it to be cultural, not religious. Circumcision is not required in Islam, but it's indispensable within Judaism. For Jews, circumcision is a blood covenant with G_d.

Burqas are not indispensable in Islam, so we could say it's not a religious requirement. However, free expression is still a driving factor in our model of government, based on the Westminster system. I can only see a ban applicable on the grounds of security.

The reason the French can legally ban the burqa is, despite their liberty, they also have fraternity and solidarity as constitutional factors. In France, the government can rule on the notion of "Frenchness", or what is deemed to be culturally important to the nation (rather than the individual).

Our system is much more English, and much more individualist than the French or Soviet constitutional models.

And remember, Australia has never been a beacon of liberty. We've always been quick to ban things and Customs are the worst. For most of our history as a nation, we've placed limits on race. I doubt the White Australia Policy would be deemed constitutional today.