Dear Cornflower,

Thank you. The list of abominations is long and painful to live with. I would like to believe that for the most part, the legislators and beaurocrats meant well, that what they had in mind was to prevent people from being bad or naughty. However, they fail to understand that what they did is in fact preventing people from being good. One can only be good by freely choosing to do good deeds (and refrain from bad deeds): being coerced to perform good actions, does not count!

Take your example: Suppose a couple waits for more certainty and an auspicious moment to let the world know that they are in a love-relationship, but the government jumps ahead and declares them to be related prematurely, then they are prevented from making their friends and relatives share their happiness. In a tax/benefits context, they are prevented from letting their good-citizenship shine by informing the authorities themselves once their relationship in fact turns financial.

Or in the case of the burqa: A Muslim woman that is forced to unveil in public, loses the opportunity to grow, to reflect on her own feelings in her own good time, emancipate herself from within and eventually realise that she actually would like to be part of society (if she does) and that the burqa no longer serves her in that or in any other meaningful way, so then she can joyfully cast it away. If on the other hand she is forced to unveil, she will only feel shame, resentment, bitterness, hatred, and is likely to join Al-Qaeda or something as revenge.

The establishment is fixed on material results and quick fixes. In their ignorance they fail to understand that the means are at least as important, if not even more important, than the results. They also fail to understand that happiness is subjective, not objective, that happiness cannot be granted by others - that true and lasting happiness is derived from one making progress and improving their (inner and outer) conditions using their own efforts after arriving at wise choices on their own.

Yuyutsu,

You lost me for a while there with all the "social contract" stuff. Some of us aren't so big on Rousseau around here as folks are in Europe.

But you've looped around to a key idea I can agree with: that the end does not necessarily justify the means, except in the fairytale land of instant Utopia, where there's a quick fix for everything.

If people feel that traditional face-covering is a tool of misogynist oppression, then by all means campaign for a law to counter it - by making it an offence to force a woman to wear it against her will.

For others who just feel uncomfortable looking at someone clothed in traditions different to their own - well I'm not exactly inspired by some of the limp, try-hard fashions I see around me either, so you show me your fashion police badge and I'll show you mine.

Westralis, there you go again with the threats and passive/aggressive behaviour.
The Toben Case is NOT a hammer to silence dissent, unless you're a Shoah survivor you don't get to have a say in what is or is not offensive to that minority group or indeed any other.
Jeremy Jones was reacting to the perceived offense and hurt caused by Toben to living victims of Nazi internment camps and their families, whatever other connotations there are surrounding the case didn't arise in the courtroom but rather the court of public opinion.
I've watched and read everything Toben has put out ,it's barely coherent at the best of times and as far as Historical Revisionists go he's not even really in the same league as the likes of Bradley Smith or Mark Weber.
James Mangisi, even though I vehemently disagree with him has put forth a well thought out article which largely eschews sensationalism.
Westralis,stop being a Lone Ranger, you may dream of yourself as the White Knight, the vigilante fighting the good fight with your non White sidekick to give you moral authority but the whole act is wearing thin and I for one am not falling for it.
For what it's worth this is still a mostly free country, we don't need reactionary viewpoints like yours stifling the more timid voices in the community.

This article is one of the best I have read in regard to the wearing of face-covering garments like the burqa or the niqab.

The diagrams included, that showed the difference between these face-covering garments, and the more common head covering scarf garment
(the Hijab), were particularly helpful in this debate.
Many people have been ignorant of these facts.

I totally agree with the authors sentiments in banning the wearing of the Burqa and Niqab in public places. I see absolutely no place for these oppressive garments in a country like Australia.

I believe that most of the women who wear these allover coverings when out in public, whether forced to wear them or by choice, would secretly welcome a ban of them in public places.
They must surely be very uncomfortable in the hot months, and when eating in public?

It is not a matter of the 'right' to wear what they like in public, but more about the vastly greater number of people out there in public life who have the 'right' to converse with human faces properly.

If people are unable by law to wear helmets or balaclavas in banks, post offices, courts and government buildings etc, then neither should women be allowed to wear face-covering clothing in these places.

@ Suzeonline.
In the bank you'd only need to show your face once, to open the account, given the large number of women working in the banking system this could be done behind closed doors without any fuss.
Most transactions use PIN or signatures, and I suppose Muslim women don't use net banking either?
Furthermore why the concern for their comfort? High heels aren't comfortable according to my wife.
Third point, what makes you think they want to talk to you?
I don't know about you but I don't spend my life wondering "Why isn't that person talking to me?"
Like a typical Lefty you bang on all the time about "Spewing Hatred" then when it comes to Muslim women the claws come out.
It's the Leftists disease, every person with brown skin is a victim,err....except when they're not...or Y'know whatever!
The other night I sat in as an African Man absolutely decimated a pair of Lefties in a debate about Race, Racism and PC,when they found themselves confronted with someone with strong views on the subject you could see them visibly shrinking into themselves.
The African man was disgusted with them and apologised to me of all people for making a scene, when I explained that White people in this country are taught from birth that they are "dirty" and that talking about race is "not nice" he laughed and said he understood.
Educated Black people end up empowered by higher learning and educated White people emerge from the same system intellectually stunted and unable to think, what's up with that?
You'd better learn how to talk about race because if you do happen to talk to one of these "oppressed" Islamic women you might end up caught flat footed and get a right roasting.

.

A legal Australian burqa & niqab !

.

Provided commonly accepted public codes of decency are respected, I see no reason to ban any particular form of wearing apparel, dress style, hair-do, face make-up, body decoration, tattoos, jewelery, etc.

This freedom, like all others, should be preserved.

However, just as total nudity in public is generally considered an inacceptable form of sexual exhibitionism, the burqa and the niqab are considered an inacceptable form of religious exhibitionism in all western civilisations of predominately Christian culture.

Similarly, mini-skirts, shorts and bikinis shock the public eye in Islamic cultures and are illegal in terms of the Shariah which, in many countries, forms the basis of the national law.

Turkey and Tunisia are two notable exceptions to the rule. Whilst these two countries are predominately of Islamic culture, their national law forbids the wearing of the burqa and the niqab in the interest of secularism.

Also, the Egyptian Prime Minister Nazif recently declared that the niqab was "a denial of woman". This followed a similar declaration by the highest religious authority in Egypt in November 2009. Islam is, of course, the predominent religion in Egypt.

As anyone who has travelled extensively will have observed, Islamic dress comes in all shapes and forms, with a large variety of colours and tissues. Some of them can be quite beautiful, even the pitch black burqas and niqabs, if they are fashioned in silk and well-tailored.

I propose that we do not pass a law banning Islamic dress. I propose that we pass a law specifically authorising it under certain conditions.

I suggest that a parliamentary commission be established to define what is aesthetically and legally acceptable as Islamic clothing in Australia.

The athorisation should apply to adults only.

A specific Australian design and tissue could be defined, with a limited choice of colours. Head and shoulders should be visible. The tissue covering them would need to be transparent.

Police, military, schools, nurses, trades people, religious orders and many others all have specific, distinctive dress, why not people of Islamic faith ?

.