The standard of this woeful article is evident in the first three words, where the author refers to a "Senator Cory Belamy". Who is this person, and is he connected somehow to Cory Bernardi?

It appears that in its haste to publish this flame-bait, OLO's usual editorial standards have been applied. Dear oh dear.

An eminently sensible article James.

<< Hiding the face in public is incompatible with accountable adult participation in society. Accordingly, the justification for a “burqa ban” is obvious, practical and necessary and the argument need not go any further. >>

<< If we are to accept the burqa and niqab, what will it do to Australia if such notions are normalised and legitimised? Are we to teach Australian girls they should always be proud to show their face and have a voice in society … unless they’re Muslim? That women’s rights are inalienable and worth fighting for, except where gender oppression is religiously or culturally endorsed? >>

The justification for banning the burqa and niqab while accepting the hijab is very clear.

After reading this article, one is tempted to state that the 'burquas are better at Hungry Jack's'

I find it interesting that so many arguments are based on the premise that the burqa or niqab wearer chooses to wear the ugly and uncomfortable garment. It must be uncomfortable, especially in hot weather, and so inconvenient when eating or speaking or any other activites such as driving. The face covering is bad enough but the long swathing skirts are also difficult to manage, especially if the wearer is looking after children or infants. Surely women would prefer to be free of such a garment and so the assumption must be that that the wearer is indeed coerced to wear it, by whatever means, as suggested by James Mangisi. To ban the burqa would free such women from the oppression of the burqa but would not insist she take up mini-skirts or make-up.

My goodness! I have never read such an ignorant one sided view in my life! and I'm not even Muslim! There are so many things wrong with this article. You do realise that you are arguing to also not allow face masks at a costume party, or masquerade party with your arguments on the social contract of personal accountability… and isn’t that why we enjoy dressing up? Or does this practice not fit so nicely into your argument for ‘womens rights’ and ‘the Australian tradition’?

“The coercion I’m talking about is the threat of … hellfire in the afterlife.”

If this is a form of coercion, then telling your children to do something in five seconds or they’ll ‘find out what happens’…5, 4, 3, 2….1 is a form of coercion. Also, any Christian Relgion that teaches children to obey their parents or risk not going to heaven/going to hell are committing human rights violations.

“the decision over the oppressiveness of western displays of female expression - like make-up, plastic surgery, high heels and so on - is ultimately left at the discretion of the individual woman.”

No one puts them selves through the pain of surgery, the wearing of high heels while standing and dancing for 6 hours, or the application of (very toxic) make-up for 20minutes a day because of choice… they do it out of fear. Fear that the other women at the party will be prettier, fear that their husbands will leave them if they don’t look young, and the growingly popular fear that they will never find someone if they start to get wrinkles. This statement is enlightened, it is not advocating western women’s rights, it is ignorant, head in the sand, stupid.

I am a friendly person, however the burqa prevents me from having even the smallest intraction with the wearer. The reason for this is that next time I meet that woman she won't know who on earth I am as it is a different woman. I then begin to objectify the wearers. Is this a benefit to our society? I know that it is certainly not.