The following summarises James Mangisi's view:

"Australian men and women have fought bravely over many generations for the right of all people, men and women, Aboriginal and white, local and migrant, to participate fully in public life. No one is forced to participate but"...

This fight was successfull indeed, which is good, but this "right" is still one-sided: surely we all got the right to participate, but what about the opposing right to not-participate, to opt-out? Is it indeed true that "No one is forced"? where could one go? where could one possibly run away and hide from contemporary society?

So long as the option is not available, it is impossible to honestly speak about some "social contract" or a breach thereof!

Yuyutsu "where could one possibly run away and hide from contemporary society?"

There are plenty of alternatives in your local community, but what are you talking about, Nimbin or something more extreme?

Nimbin is fine but of course the State has to intervene where necessary to protect people and being proactive is better than reacting.

[Deleted for flaming].

If we are going to ban the burqa then men should also be banned from growing full beards and full face motor cycle helmets should also be banned.

We have facists in Islam,Jewish and Christian faiths.Bush by presidential decree abolished habeas corpus,Obama brought in preventative detention, ie even if you are suspected of a crime,you can be indefinitely detained without legal council.Now Obama wants to legalise assassination of suspected terrorists.Are we plain stupid or just apathetic?

Dear Cornflower,

First I must clarify that I am not seeking a personal solution (unless government-control in Australia gets significantly worse, to an unlikely extent). I wouldn't even feel comfortable in a place like Nimbin (nor actually would a muslim woman wearing a burqa). Personally, unlike Australian-born citizens, I have given my consent to a "social contract" when I became an Australian citizen, and it is my aim and preference to work from within that framework to reduce the coercive imposition of governments on individuals to the very minimum. Please note that I am not against a social-contract, so long as it is voluntary.

To the best of my knowledge, Nimbin residents have no extraterritorial status or legal exemptions of any kind. If for example a burqa-clad muslim was required to provide evidence in court without her burqa, living in Nimbin would offer her no protection.

My first preference is to reduce government impositions to the minimum across the board. Short of that, perhaps it may be possible to declare some regions as a refuge, where fewer laws and regulations apply, perhaps even a few levels of that, where remoter regions enjoy a greater degree of independence from the law than those closer to major cities (this for example would do justice to those aboriginal people who resent the white occupation and way of life, but it should not be reserved only for aboriginees). Once a feasible alternative exists, yet a person still prefers to live in and enjoy the benefits of a city, then they can be assumed to have agreed to some social-contract and have less grounds to blame the state for its impositions. However, implementing such a scheme is difficult and as I just mentioned anyway, the best is to eliminate most impositions for everyone, except those impositions that are truly essential to protect other individuals.

Author James Mangisi requires, in addition to life experience, irrefutable facts to peddle his trite of habitual monkey see, monkey do, chronic copying and importation of overseas events which are then superimposed onto Australian society for the purpose of instilling fear and panic amongst the gullible.

His article lacks creditability, utilises highly emotive language and asinine clichés in place of the erudite equability of fair and honest thought.

Mr Mangisi’s musings appear to be mirroring the a previous Federal Court deliberation under the under the Racial Discrimination Act/Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in which the complainant, The Council of Australian Jewry sought adjudication on material posted on the Internet by Dr Fredrick Toben which Australia’s Jewish population found offensive.
The Court found in favour of the complainant ruling that the material posted on the internet would engender in Jewish Australians a sense of being treated contemptuously, disrespectfully and offensively.

After reading Mr Mangisi’s article on OLO plus what he has posted on his blog it seems to me that the Federal Court would also find his trite to be contemptuous, disrespectful and offensive to Muslim women whom in Australia (emphasis Australia) under their own volition, choose to wear the Burqa or Hijab in accordance with their culture and what to them, they feel comfortable in.

Why in the world would we in Australia want to legislate to prohibit a woman from wearing garments that cover the bits and pieces she does not want to expose to men she is not related to or married to?

Her preferences of attire as dictated by her cultural modesty and personal comfort are surely a matter for her alone. It should not be within the jurisdiction of the courts or of those leering with desirous, dodgy intent to adjudicate on which bits and pieces of her body that she must expose.

These women willingly conform without question to the requirements of facial exposure for identity purposes in the day to day formalities of life in Australian society which to me fully fulfils their obligations to the society that they are a part of.