Protagoras,
Firstly, whether muslim women choose to wear a burqa for a cultural reason or religious reason is none of anyone's business.
And some muslim women DO dress like this to appease their god.

I'm as confused as severin about your stance, because first you say, "...you have obfuscated the fact that I no longer see a legal ban as productive."

But then you strongly continue to argue why you are against the burqa as if you are in favour of banning them.

I don't 'really' disagree with you that much that there is a problem with burqa's and the security issues that you listed, but CJ already suggested how to deal with this.

"1. Collecting little children from school - bugger the legal requirement for identification."
Nobody is claiming that ID is unnecessary, special arrangements can be made. The school and burqa wearing women need to work something out- a private place to ID her, perhaps. Or voice recognition?

"2. Driver’s licence – photograph"
Agreed. If they don't want to oblige and be identified, then they should not be driving. Their choice though. No reason for a total ban.
Would finger printing work?

"3. University enrolment"
Ditto, private room to show ID, no need for a total ban.

"4. Passport application"
Same as 3. Still no need for a total ban.

"5. Telling the hearing impaired to get stuffed"
Fact of life is that the hearing impaired as well as the non hearing impaired are used to not be able to communicate with every person. Some mumble, others wear beards and moustaches, and many are unapproachable by nature.
I don't really know what to do about that. How many hearing impaired have a burning desire to talk to a burqa-covered woman anyway? I'm sure that there is a way to arrange a private meeting or a translator if the hearing impaired must talk with her.
If not, there are millions of others to talk to.

TBC

"6. Jury duty"
Yep see 3. Otherwise, same fine should apply as for refusing jury duty. No need for a total ban.

"7. Two fingers up at security cameras in street malls"
It's not forbidden to stroll the streets in hats and glasses, scarves around the face, balaclavas. Take gear off in banks etc. If not, they won't be welcome there. Find a bank that does welcome them- muslim bank or something. So there is no need for a total ban here either.

About the Jihad Watch site- I was under the impression that you got that article about the Pakistan bombers from there, because it was the first that came up when I googled it, and you didn't give a link with that quote. My fault for jumping to conclusions.

Maybe leave a link when you quote from an article, to avoid misconceptions.

Well said Celivia.

I think that Protagoras wishes to put into law how people should dress. I find such ideas not in line with the foundation of an equitable and democratic society.

After making an issue claiming I have not read his/her posts, surely Protagoras has read mine on this thread where I have derided the burqa; s/he would then be aware I am hardly a fan of the oppressive garb.

However if we do become apparel police because we are unable to identify people, then we must include in the ban; motorcycle helmets (can't tell who is riding a motorcycle), tinted windows in cars, hoodies and so on.

In conclusion, if Protagoras wishes to ban only the burqa then yes, s/he is discriminating against a particular segment of the population and, therefore Celivia, CJ Morgan and others are well within their rights to claim that Protagoras is bigoted towards Muslims.

Celivia, "We invited emigrants to come here and promised them that they could maintain their culture."

No, I do not believe that is the case but even if so it does not give carte blanche to introduce or maintain any tradition or practice. Would you support blood feuds too or child marriage? My earlier response refers:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10452&page=9

Because so few women wear the Burqa in Australia and there is no evidence of compulsion - from the advice of the women who are affected and their various spokespeople and advocates in the media - there is no compelling reason to ban the garment in Australia. It is a trivial matter and should be treated as such.

I do not support higher costs for public and private bodies to conduct special identification screening and I certainly hope that this doesn't also result in demands for separate wards in hospitals and limitations on medical staff who can treat them.

This is a secular nation and I do not see why the general public should be lumped with inconvenience and higher prices and taxes to cater for the demands of religious fundamentalists. Regardless of their modesty, no other public patients are conceded special treatment and nor could it be managed or afforded. User pays is the option for those who want chocolate with sprinkles, not the generic vanilla.

Tolerant, pluralistic and largely Islamic Indonesia is getting into the Muslimah clothing debate.

"ISLAMIC police in Indonesia's Aceh province have been issued with 20,000 long skirts and ordered to cover up women deemed to have broken Muslim dress codes, an official said on Tuesday."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/indonesia-islamic-police-to-carry-skirts-force-women-in-violation-of-muslim-dress-codes-to-wear-them.html

It's comforting to know that another bastion of women's choice is active so close to Australia.

Hi CF,

I agree with much you say, including “user pays” for the extra options.

Re secularism, our leaders are all too often overstepping the line that is supposed to separate church and state though.
Tax-free status of religions (except charity part), chaplains in public schools, and World Youth Day, to name a few examples.

In comparison, I don’t think it would cause much inconvenience for teachers or be costly for burqa-clad mums to quickly check the face inside a vacant room if there is no other person to pick up her child.

I wonder how they go about this ID checking in Islamic countries.

There is a hairdresser’s in this area that has curtained off a corner on the premises for the Muslimahs, so that the hairdresser is the only one who can see their hair uncovered.
Anyway, if things need to be especially arranged to cater for religious or cultural requirements and cost money, charges should apply.
Muslimahs might not be able to go to some places, but that becomes their choice.

And no, I’m not in favour of harmful or barbaric traditions and practices just because these are 'cultural'.

But a burka, as you said, is indeed a trivial matter.

Proxy,
don't worry, you won't be forced to wear a burqa if you don't like them.