I must pick up a comment made earlier by a poster to the effect that because Australia has a policy of multiculturalism migrants have the expectation and a right to import their own traditions.

I disagree with that and so would the overwhelming majority of Australians, whether they arrived here recently or not.

It's one thing to keep traditional values and customs such as the (oft cited) special foods and festivals, but keeping an old custom that is based upon violence or subjugating some of the population through forced marriage, blood feuds, vendettas, sexual mutilation, or killing your own family ('honour' killings) is another thing entirely.

So of course sonofgloin is making a very good point when s/he says that Australian governments are weak in maintaining our customs and culture - or even our laws. For example, child marriage is still practised and with authorities turning a blind eye to it, despite the certain damage it does to girls and the laws against it.

None of that is at all surprising where both major political parties are dismissive of community consultation on matters of crucial significance, preferring the advice of 'consultative' bodies of their own choosing. The advice of the unelected and unaccountable membership of semi-governmental bodies like the Australian Human Rights Commission should not be allowed to take the place of (sadly largely unused) democratic anenues and processes.

It is not surprising then that some are concerned that Australian ways, customs, beliefs and values are up for grabs and there is government support of 'diversity' means incremental change in directions that are probably at odds with what most Australians, old or new, might want. We seem to be following the UK experience of introduction of Sharia Law by stealth, which few would support if it was ever put to a vote. The question should not arise in the first place in a country that claims to be secular.

With weak unrepresentative government I can see why some see the burqa as the thin edge of a thick wedge. It is still not worth a ban.

Cornflower>>sonofgloin is making a very good point when s/he says<<

Cornflower, me Tarzan not Jane.

sonofgloin

Of course, sorry, carry on.

I'll say it again for those who continue to CONFUSE the burqa as a garment proclaiming religious faith .....

THE BURQA IS A CULTURAL GARMENT. It's origins are believed to be from tribal Afghanistan and Pakistan.

IT'S PURPOSE IS TO COMPLETELY OBLITERATE THE FEMALE PERSONA IN PUBLIC. Women in this culture "belong" to either Father or Husband and in the absence of either, a close male relative will act as keeper. Her immediate family and close female associates will be the only people permitted to see her 'uncovered'.
Some women undoubtedly wear it 'willingly' as they have been brought up to accept it - like children in cults accept the lifestyle and dogma. Some - I'd guess more likely those born here, undoubtedly would like to shed it. But it won't likely be the woman's own decision ....

I am deadset sure that most of the posters have absolutely no idea of the lifestyle associated with this odious garment.

However security concerns are legitimate. If motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, bandanas tied across the face etc are deemed security risks then so is the burqa. If the identity of a person must be established for whatever reason - legal, medical, travel etc, the burqa is a problem.

On top of that I reiterate - the burqa is culturally inappropriate in Australia and we need make no apologies for saying so and banning it in public. It has just as sinister overtones as KKK robes though most of the 'danger' in its case is to the wearer.

You can also be pretty sure that if it is not at least censored and wearers legally obliged to lift it back when their identity needs to be acertained or under same conditions others must remove helmuts, head covering etc that the custom will continue. Want an example - Great Britain. Mmmm the poster country for multicultural bliss ...NOT

A few thoughts.
- I communicate regularly on OLO, by email, by phone, by text messages etc. The lack of body language does hinder communication but it still happens.
- It's my impression that muslim women who are traditional enough to wear the full face cover are unlikely to be spending a lot of time in conversations with strangers, driving, having paid employment etc. Possibly some exceptions but for the most part many activities which are the norm for most people are not so normal for them.
- The full coverings seen like an exaggerated version of the sentiments which have made Fernwood successful. In most other areas we respect other peoples rights to choose the level of privacy they prefer unless there are compelling reasons to not do so.
- The government does already play a role in regulating people's attire which provides legal legitimacy to the idea that "that the body should be covered because it is lewd and may incite lewd thoughts in others" or that parts of the body are somehow offensive. Not an idea I particularly like but it's there.
- Giving extremist muslim's a symbol to rally support around does not seem all that smart. Ban it and it's power as a symbol becomes important.

R0bert

R0bert

Well said - an excellent summary of points made here - above and beyond the extreme ones.

The burqa will go the way of the whale-bone corset - both limited women physically (in the case of the burqa; limits communication) and both are/were a health hazard.

They don't bind women's feet in China any more, do they?