ISSUE - Banning Islamic Headdress, the Niqab and Burka, etc & the constitution?

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the

constitution.
No one question the fact that s116 of the constitution prohibits the banning of religious headgear,
but what should be understood is that this doesnt mean that the Commonwealth and for that any
State/Territory cannot ban Banning Islamic Headdress, the Niqab and Burka!
Let me explain: HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I understood the
honorable member to put himself on the very highest pedestal, and by contrast to put me on the very lowest. At
all events, I feel that if this were carried, an unpopular individual, to obtain his rights and liberties, would have to
go cap in hand to and be at the mercy of the Government of the day. I was thinking of the pig-tail case which
occurred in California, and which I alluded to some time ago, where an abominably unjust law was passed
against Chinamen. It was passed to persecute them in regard to their pig-tails, which they regard with
exceptional reverence. That law was declared to be unconstitutional as a law passed by a state. END QUOTE
HANSARD 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. HIGGINS.-I did not say that it took place under
this clause, and the honorable member is quite right in saying that it took place under the next clause; but I am
trying to point out that laws would be valid if they had one motive, while they would be invalid if they had
another motive. END QUOTE. Then considering that ordinary numerous legal provisions require a

person to remove head cover, hoodies, etc, for security reasons such as banks,
swearing/affirming an Affidavit/Declaration then it would be a violation of s116 not to demand
the same for people claiming to have religious objections to do so. Page 78 Justice of the Peace
NSW Handbook 2014 Appendix E: Accommodating religious or cultural beliefs Re Seeing the persons face
statutory declarations and affidavits QUOTE You must see the face of the person making the statutory declaration
of affidavit (see Step 2 of Section 2.1 on page 9 or Section 2.3 on page 23, as applicable). Religious beliefs or
cultural practices are not a special justification for a person not removing he/her face covering. However, if
possible, you should make reasonable efforts to accommodate the persons beliefs, such as: END QUOTE
As such the petition by Senator Malcolm Roberts at, Leon.ashby@aph.gov.au The Petition Link is,
https://www.change.org/p/senate-and-government-of-australia-immediately-ban-the-wearing-of-the-islamicheaddress-the-niqab-and-burka-in-australia in my view is within the provisions of s116 permissible and

indeed appropriate. One cannot selectively deny a person to have a face cover based upon
religion, as if national or other security requirements demands that one has to remove a helmet,
etc, when entering a bank or other facilities then the same should apply for any who claim
religious exemptions that the religious exemption cannot apply. Unlike the pig tail incident this is
where for many years one has to remove facial coverings to enter a bank, etc, and as such it is a
security issue and not a interference to a persons religious or non-religious beliefs and practices.
The fact that some people may not desire to remove their facial coverings cannot excuse them.
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided June 15,
1970 QUOTE 3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those
whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are
based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose
belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361. END QUOTE

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response,

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

p1
22-9-2016
G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati