A classically disingenuous dog-whistling article from Mr Ariel.

<< Whether it’s against the law to conceal one’s face in a public space is a good question. If it isn’t, it should be. >>

If Ariel had bothered to check, he'd find out it isn't generally. In certain situations, e.g. banks and airports, people may be required by regulation to remove headgear for security or identification purposes.

<< The wearing of Islamic headdress is but one challenge [to?]western societies >>

On the other hand, from the wearer's perspective it is but one way of asserting one's religious fundamentalism. Certainly ridiculous if one doesn't share that perspective, but hardly challenging unless one is Islamophobic.

<< Bus companies argued successfully that it is not unreasonable for passengers holding photo travel passes to identify themselves to the driver or the conductor. >>

Fair enough too - except that wasn't the case with the woman in Greystanes where the driver was clearly incorrect about the law.

<< As luck would have it, the MAC proposed two-light solution never saw light of day. Taxi owners, savvy as they are, feared that customers would boycott Muslim taxis, identifiable by their lights. They also feared that customers would soon boycott taxis altogether and use other means of transportation. >>

No luck involved at all. It was a pragmatic solution to a problem brought about the drivers' efforts to impose their silly religious taboos on others. When the drivers realised they didn't have a justifiable objection to the MAC proposal, they modified their silly bans.

As Ariel says, we can learn from experiences elsewhere. By all means prohibit the wearing of attire that conceals identity where public safety or security demand it, because that's justifiable on reasonable grounds. Indeed, the consequent inconvenience to those who insist on wearing such ridiculous attire could well influence them to abandon it of their own volition.

However, to extend that to a general prohibition on concealing one's face in public would be a "knee jerk reaction", as opposed to Ariel's claim about media attention paid to the Greystanes incident.

'i assume the commenters here are just as outraged at certain christian chemists refusing contraception, and certain christian doctors refusing to direct women to where they can get advice on abortion.'

Just because some have calloused hearts does not mean everyone has to.

Women with veiled faces shouldn't travel around unaccompanied by a male relative - that's Muslim law. Public transport users should be able to travel in safety and if a veiled person gets into your bus, train how do you know if its a woman or a man and if there is a problem how do you identify the person.

If you want to live in Australia why don't you adapt to our customs?

If I am ever involved in a car accident with a veiled driver I will swear black and blue that their vision was impeded.

Veiling muslim women is as indefensible as
- orthodox jewish women shaving their hair on their wedding day and always wearing wigs or hats in public
- The Australian newspaper naming the woman charged with using an abortificant
- doctors failing to refer patients on for abortion
- governments demanding women undergo counselling before an abortion, when the funded counsellors are openly anti-abortio

These actions are all designed to control women's sexuality and ability to participate as equal members in our society

Being incognito seems to be the problem for some people, and the issue of religion seems to be a weak veil (sorry) to the predjudices involved.

Would a person wearing mirror sunglasses and a full grown beard be treated the same, or is it because the "veil" is known to be the trappings of a religion that there is a reaction?

I tend to agree with CJ Morgan that the only time you need reveal yourself is for security or other process of identity purposes.

(There may even be people who for medical reasons would dearly love to cover their features rather than be the object of interest.)

Should we have a "no hiding your identity" law? That'd be so arbitrary we'd struggle to get agreement.

Perhaps we can only hope in a civil society that people who hide their features can eventually feel secure enough that they do not need to and their religion/s similarly feels confidant that people can handle it. We'll only get there if some folks stop hyperventilating about people who dress differently.

Why not just microchip everyone?