What ever religious "label" is placed on these silly "covers" the inescapable fact is that the person male/female is using a disguise and as such has no place in public places!

I see the lemmings are out in force today.

Sorry Jocelynne, I won't be joining your Lemming stampede to elimination.

At a cursory glance, there are (at least) three counts of lack of intellectual rigour against Scutt’s thesis:
1. The assumption that proscribing public appearance on the basis of attire is anti-muslim. It may be due a cultural quirk of somewhat antediluvian societies which may or may not be muslim; or it may be due to that old-time religion which is offended by public nudity.
2. Wearing such an excluse a garment as the niquab in public is demonstrating “the right to fraternity”.
3. “how a miscreant could escape amidst the billowing skirts of the garment hanging about their legs and interfering with their perambulation is mystifying.” (Tell that to many of the rather successful Taliban fighters; though I do confess to finding something mysterious about it).

Since all the arguments in favour of banning the burqua also apply to sunglasses, judges' robes and wigs, academic gowns and caps, toupees, hair dye, facial hair, contact lenses and cosmetics, any ban must surely include all of these in order to achieve its stated goals.

When such a ban is proposed I will vote for it; till then I maintain that Muslim women have just as much right to make themselves look ridiculous as Secret Service agents, fashion models, the Chief Justice and the graduating class of 2011 do.

There are, always have been, restraints on what people can wear in public - and requirements what must be covered. Nothing new!

We are talking about cultural tradition rather than religion where women are completely hidden but for eyes. There is nothing in the Koran to indicate a woman must obliterate her identity in public.

In Australian, which is generally VERY tolerant, the culture is to speak and interact with one's fellow citizens FACE to FACE. It's considered, and rightly so, culturally offensive to most Australians to present as an unidentifiable person. A 'person' who could be any race, creed, age or either sex. Regardless of Ms Scutts stupid assertions about the movement hindering qualities of 'tent' garb, the occupant is completely disguised.

Australians are generally respectful and tolerant towards the diverse religions practised here. Provided adherents are LAW ABIDING and LEADERS people of good character we tend to regard religious affiliation as a positive attribute. However if clergy and/or members of any faith bring disrepute, (through unlawful conduct, inflammatory speech, discrimatory behaviour ect) to that religion, peaceful, lawful followers suffer the fallout. I'm not referring to just one religion here. However if asked about any 'faith' where followers are identified or perceived as reluctant to integrate into Australian society or adhere to Australian Law, most Australians will answer, Islam or Muslims.

But really - that's another topic.

I have no objection to religious dress provided the wearer's identity is retained. The Muslimas who want to wear the burqa really need make but one compromise, exposure of the face from above the brows to just under the chin to comply with what are considered acceptable standards for everyone else. They will certainly comply with their Holy Book which instructs both sexes to practice modesty in attire.

When you come to live in another country and culture you must expect to make some changes in order to fit in. If you, or your Australian born descendents, spouses etc cannot make such adjustment, I'd suggest a move to a country where both you and your fellow citizens will be comfortable.

As far as I know, my civil liberties are infringed, because I am not allowed my religious (recently converted pagan) garb which consists solely of sandals and a string around my waist.

This anti pagan discrimination needs to stop. I will be protesting my rights (summer only) outside town hall.