.

Oops ... I meant to say ...

.

"The athorisation should apply to CONSENTING adults only !"

.

Sorry about that.

.

.

Oops and oops again ...

.

I am sure you will all have corrected my spelling of "INacceptable to "UNacceptable" ...

which I am sure you will all agree, is quite unacceptable ...

.

Sorry about that too !

.

Welllll... having been beaten to death by crusading (Jihading?)Pericles...(yet again) I guess I better make some original contribution.... (licks wounds)

@Suz.. 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.

Now..my contribution is simple.. why does it have to be harder than what Suze said? She is right...for what I hope are obvious reasons.

The religion of the wearer is an issue if the person claims they wear it out of 'religious obedience'.. rather than 'clothing choice'

Well..it's an issue to me for sure, even if not for others.

It's an issue for me because the 'religious obedience' part is where it get's dangerously close to the baggage which goes along with that mindset.. the 'other' things which drive people of that faith when they see such a thing as the Burqa as being a religious requirement.

@ Pericles.. strange how those kind words of yours about me being from some other dimension have been directed at you more often than not by very clear thinking people .. if not the same words..at least the sentiment. Let's face it.. you can read "until they are brought into subjection" and see "tolerance and virtue".. so that kind of wraps it up for me. Or.. more accutately, you simply don't see such sentiments as having any relevance to 'today'.
When someone's thinking is that far gone it's a big ask to fix it, and far above my pay scale.

Banjo Paterson:
<< This freedom, like all others, should be preserved ...
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. >>

From there your argument wanders into something between a charter for the fashion police and a registered way of dressing for people of certain cultures, which will evoke some deja vu for students of history.

But I'd just like to clear up a common confusion about freedom, which ties in with some people's notion of a "social contract".

In a free country we do not live by the grace of an enumerated list of specific "freedoms" generously granted to us by laws, bills of rights, and so on. For example I do not need any law or permit to say I may leave my home town and go live in another town.

The law simply has nothing to say on most personal activities and choices, until some necessary rule enabling society or the state to function, or protecting people from harm, becomes violated.

(This is one of the legal concepts which proponents of a bill of rights often have difficulty understanding. Once you enumerate rights, then everyone must live within an envelope of things they are authorized to do - a social contract, in other words - and you risk legislators and courts saying, "Is that all?" Effectively substituting those explicit rights for any presumption of freedom.)

So there is no specific freedom permitting a person to wear or not wear head coverings. This is just a personal area where the law does not intrude. And the author of the article fails to give any good reason why the law should do so.

Posted by Yuyutsu, "(albeit in my specific case, and that of other immigrants, this relationship is in fact explicit).

Can I therefore deduce that in your dictionary, the implicit relationship between a rapist and his victim also constitutes a contract, as in: "You relax and open your legs nicely, then I will refrain from sticking this knife in your throat"? now suppose that victim managed to escape - would you then blame her for breaching that social contract?"

Yuyutsu I can only conclude that your extremely offensive example arises from your weak grasp of the English language or lack of understanding of the culture you have entered. (Ironic really since I was actually agreeing that banning particular clothing is not really a good idea) "Social contract" refers ONLY to the relationship between the state and the individual and no other circumstances - "Social contract" is a philosophical concept not a dictionary definition - (crudely, the state offers protection and representation in exchange the citizen (or resident) submits to the will of the state). The "will of the state" refers to any and all laws and legal directions. While normally I would be inclined to agree that immigration makes this relationship explicit - clearly it does not do so where the immigrant does not understand the concept!

There could not be a better argument against the concept of a Bill of Rights than this.

Thank you suzeonline.

>>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.<<

"Section 2 Clause 14 (a)ii shall read:

Every citizen shall have the right to converse properly with a human face. For the avoidance of doubt, this requires any Citizen to remove any face covering when requested by any other Citizen, whether or not they feel inclined to converse with the requesting Citizen. Concomitantly, it is the right of any Citizen to demand that another Citizen remove any form of covering from their facial area, at any time and under any circumstances"

Yep. That should do it.

>>She is right...for what I hope are obvious reasons.<<

I thought you were against these kind of "rights", Boaz?

Incidentally...

>>The religion of the wearer is an issue if the person claims they wear it out of 'religious obedience'.. rather than 'clothing choice'<<

This will clearly require an extension the above clause.

"Section 2 Clause 14 (a)iii shall read:

Every citizen shall have the right to require any other citizen to declare, when requested, their motive for choosing the clothing that they are wearing. For the avoidance of doubt, if any citizen should respond "my religion requires it", the requestor has the right to demand that the apparel in question be removed, forthwith."

Great days, Boaz. Great days.