And again, Muslims are not a race. Although I don’t expect people to ever stop accusing any criticism of Islamic-related issues as being racist. It’s odd, though, that so many people thoughtlessly fling the word racism in conversations about a gigantic religion which has members from every ethnic group under the sun.
Sorry. It was stated as so in the OP and perhaps should have been theocist? Just not as satisfying to call someone that I guess as it lacks the immediate onus and dismissiveness.
That’s disingenuous. You dont have to target a race (and, mind you, most Western nations dont recognize races as a legal concept) to be racist.
It’s as absurd as saying Arabs can’t be antisemites because they’re Semites as well.
Targeting a minority group with discriminatory practices is racism. Is that the case here? Cant tell with the limited amount of info. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say the OP is truthful, then this sounds completely retarded on the part of the concerned Muslims to react like that. That said I dont see why you need a law to uphold a general principle of law enforcement, that is the ability to check someone’s ID (I know some democracies have restriction on that but it’s usually an assumed power of police forces).
The OP is truthful to a degree, however the law is in the process of being enacted in ONE Australian state, and it is under consideration in two others. It’s being discussed as an issue around the nation, however at this point New South Wales (where the incident with Ms Matthews occurred) is the only state to have moved to legislate the requirement for burqha-wearing women to visually identify their faces.
Reports vary as to whether the legislation specifies removing “headdresses” or simply “face concealing veils”. If it’s the former, then ALL headdresses should be removed on request by a police officer - be they burkhas, niqabs, wigs, hats, hoods or small animal carcasses. If it’s the latter, then the argument about wigs and so forth is pointless, because it’s specifying articles of clothing that obscure the face, and a woman in a headscarf that doesn’t obscure her face should no more be asked to remove that than someone wearing a beanie should be.
Just to make it clear: it is not an Australian (Federal) law, but a New South Wales (state) law.
It affects all nature of face-coverings, including full-face helmets and balaclavas. So by the law’s letter it’s not anti-Muslim (although it was an incident involving a Muslim woman that brought the issue to a head). One might consider it to be motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment and just extended to other groups as there was no possible argument not to, but as enacted there’s no reason to object to it on those ground IMO.
It was pretty decisively shown that the signature on the offending complaint was not hers (speculatively, her husband or relative wrote the complaint and forged her signature). So in fact the law seems to have come to the right answer in this case.
She was also specifically called out by the judge as a proven liar, so I don’t think she exactly got off scot-free in a general sense.
Re: the cost issue…
I do think it’s funny that people will gladly spend tons of government money on all sorts of really expensive security equipment of dubious value, but the moment you mention implementing useful security equipment that might also help with a religious accommodation, suddenly cost becomes an issue.
There has been absolutely no political effort in the US to roll back the security and surveillance state, and that stuff isn’t free. So, frankly, if you’re in the US and you are complaining about the cost of fingerprint scanners, I don’t see any reason to think your complaint is genuine.
It’s worth noting that some (many, most?) muslim advocacy groups in Australia have no problem with the principle of this law. There have been requests for certain accommodations - lifting the veil in a private setting, or having a female police officer conduct the check - but overall it seems to be relatively uncontroversial.
Not odd in any way. It’s fairly evident that a good bit of anti-Muslim commentary is actually racial / ethnic, aimed at “Pakis” or “Arabs” rather than genuinely at some abstract religious doctrine. As such quite a lot of it is right out racial (in a wide sense). Rag-heads, Camel Jockeys, Dirty Pakis, all that sort of thing is classic racism.
On the actual point, every time I catch a glimpse of women’s ID cards from a wide variety of Islamic countries (passports or whatnot) over the years, they always have an unveiled face. Seems to be standard.
/Inigo/ I don’t think that word means what you think it means. /Inigo/
Sorry, to be racist it has to be upon the basis of physical appearance, not cultural practices. The term you want is ethnocentric, or ethnocentrism. Despite popular usage of the word, racism has a narrow actual definition, and it needs to be carefully used.
As to the OP, this isn’t racist in the least, and it is a *very *reasonable accommodation as far as I’m concerned. Police and other officials have to be able to ascertain a person’s identity properly to avoid misconduct. As of now, a simple physical description, though often inaccurate as described by witnesses, is the cheapest and most efficient way to identify a person, confirm their identity to ID’s or locate a fleeing suspect. There is no logical reason why a whole group of people should be given special treatment to dodge basic civil security measures due to their belief in fairy tales.
They certainly are if people perceive them as being so. “Race” is an arbitrary distinction that can be drawn along any border of human difference the observer chooses. If you don’t believe me you are welcome to consult any authority on thehistory of the use of the term “race.”
“Racism” is a perfectly accurate and descriptive word for bigotry against a distinct group of people.
Habibs?:dubious:
Are you talking about hijabs?
No they are not. The lack of the scientific community to establish a biological definition of “race” as it pertains to humans does not equate to being able to use the word in whatever manner you like. Racism has a specific usage, and even if applied to common speech is widely taken to refer to discrimination/ persecution on the basis of physical appearance.
By your definition, Furries could claim it’s racist to make fun of them.
This is pretty bloody precious. Racist is an ordinary word, not some technical term and in general usage it isn’t in any way “specific” as you archly pretend. Your personal preference isn’t determinative. Odd nutters dressed up in costumes, by the way, doesn’t in any way have anything to do with common usage, as it is quite clear common usage refers to actual physical appearance, not costumes.
Leaving aside that Islam is not a race as people normally think of one: listening to rap music, driving lowriders, celebrating hannukah and eating lutefisk are also cultural traditions rather than racial traits, but I have no doubt that efforts to prohibit any of those activities them would be met with cries of racism.
For good or ill, people conflate race and culture.
Mind you, I think the law is eminently sensible, and not at all racist; but I also have no problem saying some cultural traits are superior to others, and most people do. I’m not surprised to hear it called racist, though, as playing the victim-of-racism angle is quite effective.
Hyperbole for the sake of making a point.
However, what’s the difference between those nutters and the other ones who insist that women be completely covered because an invisible man in the sky might be angered? I’m tolerant of religion until in infringes on my basic rights in society to be safe. Giving people a special pass because of their particular brand of idiocy is neither fair nor in the interest of public safety.
This is an entirely different point - and hyperbole didn’t make a point it distracted from it. I don’t see anyone being particularly sympathetic to the idea the hyper-religious ladies should get a pass at all, quite the contrary.
Since Muslim countries don’t give veiled women a pass I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Moreover, I don’t know where you live, but in the US there is no “right to be safe”.
If you’re going to be absurdly pedantic about the term “race” you might want to check up a bit more on what “rights” one has and doesn’t have where you live.
Not really. Rickjay seems to think that racist simply means whatever he’d like it to. It doesn’t. It has a proper definition that you can look up in any dictionary. Ethnocentrism is far closer to the topic as it deals with a cultural practice; one that is spread across people of many different physical races, nationalities, and local cultures.
Popular usage of the term “racist” is far too loose and often obfuscates having a proper debate about a topic. You could call it ethnocentric, bigoted, and discriminatory all you like and I’d possibly be there to agree, but racist it is not.
Oh get over yourself. My comment was directly related to the OP’s question, and relevant to the discussion.
You are correct that we don’t have a “right” to be safe, but we do enjoy the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That implies that others cannot deprive me of those things, and to enforce them we have laws and police. To do their job and ensure my rights, they keep the public safe from harm by unidentified persons. In the course of this, we have things like ID’s, etc. Religious idiocy should not exempt a person from this, nor is it racist to suggest so.
No, he rather seems to understand, unlike you, it is not a technical term and is used
Yes, indeed. And it simply indicates belief that one’s own race is superior. And as race is used in quite a liberal, muddy fashion in popular speech, he’s right, you’re wrong.
That you dislike popular usage is bloody well evident. But popular usage exists and you’ll just have to suck it up, since racism isn’t a technical term.