“Conor raises the issue of women in Australia taking men’s names when they marry. But this too is misleading. Many don’t get married at all. And those that do have a variety of options. Many do go the traditional way, opting to take on their partner’s name, some hyphenate and some, like my mother, keep their own surname as an expression of feminist principles and maintenance of their personal identity. Underlying all of this is commitment to the ongoing discussion of female identity.”

As such, many Muslim women don’t wear a head covering at all. And those that do have a variety of options. Many go the traditional way, opting to cover their faces, some just cover their heads and some, like a friend of mine, keep their head uncovered as an expression of her religious identity.

“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?”

No, we are to teach them that they can be and do anything, as a woman. And there is no shame in being a stay-at-home mum, just as there is no shame in being the next prime minister of Australia. That they can choose to show their legs, their arms, their faces, or cover them if they so CHOOSE. They are allowed to walk through city centres wearing just a bikini, and are allowed to walk through the same city centre covered head to tow. Because in our western modern culture, they have a choice that no one can take away from them. That our laws must protect them from harm, but not take away the choices that we so fervently fight for.

I don’t have the answers but I do know that ‘the Australian tradition’ as you so put it, is one of fighting for your fellow man and a relaxed, inclusive attitude to new ideas.

We should NEVER cross the line in to legislating about what a woman can or cant wear.

It's all very tenuous, isn't it.

The logic leaps that the article requires - often from one sentence to the next - are fairly challenging in themselves.

"So why must the burqa and niqab be banned? Quite simply, in the public sphere there is a fundamental need for identification."

In all places, at all times?

Hardly. How would we then cater for motorcycle couriers, skiers, hockey goalkeepers, cricketers?

The article doesn't even start to allow for such distinctions.

This leads to such naivety as

"Hiding the face in public is incompatible with accountable adult participation in society"

That's just nonsense. I could make a strong case for smoking being "incompatible with accountable adult participation in society". And an equally strong one for banning smoking being "incompatible with accountable adult participation in society".

A pretty indefensible judgment call, whichever way you look at it.

"enshrining “public facial disclosure” law in Australia does not target Islamic women"

Oh yeah? Tell me of another group that would be affected.

But beneath all the attempts to justify the unjustifiable lies a subtler problem.

On what basis do we, the citizens of Australia, believe that it is the task of our government to dictate our clothing?

Let's start with indecency. Tick. Not an issue. It's illegal. The presence or absence of clothing does not alter the principle that it the illegality is in the exposure, not the clothes per se.

And progress to security - Banks etc. There are clearly some basic requirements for visual recognition, and the burqa/niqab does not meet these requirements, along with hockey masks, balaclavas, crash helmets etc.

Fine. Make it a requirement that in these circumstances, the face should be uncovered. End of issue.

Anything else? Not really.

Making the government responsible for dictating a blanket approval/disapproval of particular clothing plays into the hands of the extremist everywhere.

If we think it's ok, we have little moral claim to the high ground if we object to the laws in other countries, where they might have different views on what constitutes "acceptable clothing".

Elise, when you write "If [threatening people with hellfire in the afterlife] 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 Religion that teaches children to obey their parents or risk not going to heaven/going to hell are (sic) committing human rights violations", you do not need the conditional. Teaching children that there are such places as heaven and hell is a violation of their human rights — a violation that is being increasingly recognised as child abuse. Violating human rights is something that all religions do quite well.

Isn't it great how arguments for banning the burqa constantly alternate between feminism - protecting the woman from coercion - and public security - protecting society from the covered face.

It reminds me of Senator Conroy's argument for the internet filter which keeps shifting from one foot to the other - protecting children from seeing something nasty, and protecting children from being in something nasty.

In both cases, the constantly shifting argument enables the coercive social engineer to keep changing the subject while advocating the same coercion for confused reasons.

Let's take the public safety issue first. Why did this problem only arise during the current era of terrorism and anti-Muslim pogroms? Why did this problem of the social obligation to show your face, never arise in relation to sunglasses, beards, changing your hair, and all the other methods people have used for years (including fugitives from the law) to change their appearance?

Second, let's look at the angle of rescuing women from coercion by their own husbands, fathers, and communities. All people who live with others have to make compromises, some of them hard. If a Muslim woman finds these demands onerous, the freedom of Australian society does give her a choice to leave home and find another more tolerant community.

That will usually be hard. Fact of life: freedom can give people choices; it cannot guarantee all choices will be easy.

The only strong case for using coercion to rescue Muslim women from coercion is in relation to children. Unlike adults, children do not have the option of leaving home. For children under 18, we could consider banning the burqa as an element of their social education - compulsory just like the academic parts of education.

But once a woman reaches the age of 18, we must allow her to make her own choice. The fact that it may be a hard choice is not sufficient grounds for taking that choice away from her.

There's nothing wrong with the niqab or the burqa so cut it out you hard hearted people.
There is nothing wrong at all about the burqa or the niqab IN ANY ISLAMIC COUNTRY.
The whole point is that it is wrong in Australia The highest secular authority in Western Australia and the highest religious authority have said so. End of story.
So why do they persist with demanding our acceptance of this? There is a hidden agenda that some Islamists have. And that is to bit by bit to wring out as many concessions as possib;le. The next is the acceptance of sharia courts and sharia justice.Not the whole package...at first. Its Islamic creep.Bit by bit.They will try to wear us down till at some time they feel we will be resigned to it and say,"What the hell.Give it to them."

socratease

If the Muslims were given the right to the niqab and the burqa and one day they were able to make Australian an Islamic country would non-Muslim women still be allowed the freedom of the education they so desired, the same social norms and to wear what they wanted and where they wanted? These matters are not so far-fetched and need to be CAREFULLY weighed up by all our so-called freedom-loving friendly to Islamic culture nonm- Muslim bleeding hearts.

socratease