Interesting Article

[Rocket36]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25827628-421,00.html

Good on him I say... If I tired to go into a service station or a bank with my motorbike helmet on, I'd be arrested if I refused to take it off. Can't wait to see the next Chaser. No doubt they'll be trying all sorts of things with different masks, balaclavas etc... Or maybe even dress up as a Ninja!

[Swallowtail]

Yes it is an interesting article... However this is a subject that is potentially very emotive, with many people holding quite strong views one way or the other. Please can everyone be aware of the General Chat rider if posting in this thread:

"But remember...We are a public forum and the same rules of propriety hold! No bad language, incitement of hatred or antisocial posts, please."

Cheers

[Manaz]

I tend to side with the driver here, as long as he wasn't rude about it (and from the article, it sounds that he wasn't).

I recognise her right to wear the niqab, but when there are safety and security concerns (given the attacks buses and bus drivers have suffered), I think it's reasonable to request that it be removed on the bus so that her face isn't obscured to the security cameras. Sure, she may not have been intending on hiding behind the scarf and causing trouble, but it's an all or nothing rule - you can't judge at the time who's safe and who's not, and given the risks, I think it's reasonable to err on the side of protection of the public and request that the scarf is removed.

As Rocket36 has mentioned, there's no way a balaclava or helmet would have been allowed - the fact that it's a religious decision doesn't make it any safer (or less safe, for that matter) - in the end, the face is being obscured where a decision has been made that it should not be.

I think it's reverse discrimination to allow a scarf on religious grounds but disallow a balaclava due to it being cold and someone having a temperature-sensitive face, for instance. Both are reasonable reasons for wearing the head-dress, but neither in the end should over-ride the requirement for security.

[Arctra]

It is interesting, and I've actually wondered about this before. But wow, what a potentially explosive topic to be discussing in a forum like this!

Before the posts start flowing thick and fast and tempers start fraying, might I suggest this thread me locked? Not binned, as there's no harm in people reading it, but I reckon discussions are bound to degenerate on this one.

Just my 5c.

[Spyda]

Being from Broadmedows i've seen a lot of this and its well funny to see people argue about it, it always ends up being religion vs logic.
Every Muslim, including my grandparents, I ask tells me that its not written that a woman has to cover her face, its optional.
I find it scary when you see the lady fully covered up including the eyes and driving a mini van.

The joke of walking in to a bank or servo with something over your face has already been done in by a UK show, i forget what the shows called though.

[Rocket36]

Completely agree Manaz. It's interesting to me too because it's what I do for a living. My company supplies and maintains biometric identity assurance and security systems world wide, and while facial recognition technology is currently quite good, it can't work for just eyes - yet.

Most people will have seen Minority Report where everyone is identified by their eyes. This sort of technology is going to be mainstream within the next 5 years. At the moment, the restriction is the ability for cameras to be quick enough at a high enough resolution to analyse the iris (retina is old technology, not as unique as iris and requires a more detail and up close scan rather than just a photo).

Once the image capture technology catches up to the identity assurance technology, this sort of issue will be a thing of the past. Even going as far as to be an IR image capture of a person's iris so that it doesn't matter if they're wearing glasses. So long as the technology allows for the image capture to be detailed enough, someone will be easily identified.

Biometric details (fingerprints and facial image) are already stored electronically on the latest passports.

I think it's cool that technology can be used to alleviate social tensions. In the future, the bus driver wouldn't have to worry what someone was wearing and still have the same level of security as someone who must currently be completely unmasked.

might I suggest this thread be locked? Not binned, as there's no harm in people reading it, but I reckon discussions are bound to degenerate on this one.

If people maintain civility and open discussion, there is nothing wrong with it being discussed (just delete anything that doesn't fit within the forum rules). If the comments from the article on news.com.au are anything to go by, the majority of people actually agree with the concerns the bus driver had to start with. Discrimination is never a good thing, but nobody ever seems realise that reverse discrimination can be equally as bad.

[Mrk_Mickey]

Mmm that's a very tough topic (not something I care to be challenged by on a Friday night! :nana).

I agree for both sides a little bit. Her religion tells her to wear the mask, yet the rules are the rules so it's very hard to enforce without the implication of racism here.

You've been good so far on the topic guys, keep it up.

[Greg Roles]

Logic vote here, overall safety comes first.

[Blitzen]

I say good on the bus driver...He has rules to follow too, and he is only doing his job.

[JustCruisn]

Girl gets on bus, driver quotes some bollocks, girl explains, gets on bus == all good.

There is no law to enforce, no rules to follow. Driver got it wrong pretty simple.

There is no legal requirement to show your face so you can be identified by a camera

[Blitzen]

Girl gets on bus, driver quotes some bollocks, girl explains, gets on bus == all good.

There is no law to enforce, no rules to follow. Driver got it wrong pretty simple.

There is no legal requirement to show your face so you can be identified by a camera

Meh, I still say good on the bus driver...If there isn't a law for it, there should be.

I would say more, but I don't think alot of people would share my views...

[mikinoz]

Quite amusing, the mask is about as symbolic as a keyboard really.

In all respect, I think our laws are over the top. Why can't I wear my President Nixon mask to the bank?

[maca]

I guess you've got to see it from both perspective. But being in Australia; she has to follow Australian laws and if there are laws regarding this issue, she has to follow them.

Simple. If there's a law, we follow it.

[AusScare]

Can't wait to see the next Chaser. No doubt they'll be trying all sorts of things with different masks, balaclavas etc... Or maybe even dress up as a Ninja!

They've already tried doing shopping with stockings over their heads. Results were as expected.

[JustCruisn]

I guess you've got to see it from both perspective. But being in Australia; she has to follow Australian laws and if there are laws regarding this issue, she has to follow them.

Simple. If there's a law, we follow it.

That is the main point. There is NO law, so there is NO issue.
No political party would take on such a issue, so not likely to change.