What ever religious "label" is placed on these silly "covers" the inescapable fact is that the person male/female is using a disguise and as such has no place in public places!

I see the lemmings are out in force today.

Sorry Jocelynne, I won't be joining your Lemming stampede to elimination.

At a cursory glance, there are (at least) three counts of lack of intellectual rigour against Scutt’s thesis:
1. The assumption that proscribing public appearance on the basis of attire is anti-muslim. It may be due a cultural quirk of somewhat antediluvian societies which may or may not be muslim; or it may be due to that old-time religion which is offended by public nudity.
2. Wearing such an excluse a garment as the niquab in public is demonstrating “the right to fraternity”.
3. “how a miscreant could escape amidst the billowing skirts of the garment hanging about their legs and interfering with their perambulation is mystifying.” (Tell that to many of the rather successful Taliban fighters; though I do confess to finding something mysterious about it).

Since all the arguments in favour of banning the burqua also apply to sunglasses, judges' robes and wigs, academic gowns and caps, toupees, hair dye, facial hair, contact lenses and cosmetics, any ban must surely include all of these in order to achieve its stated goals.

When such a ban is proposed I will vote for it; till then I maintain that Muslim women have just as much right to make themselves look ridiculous as Secret Service agents, fashion models, the Chief Justice and the graduating class of 2011 do.

There are, always have been, restraints on what people can wear in public - and requirements what must be covered. Nothing new!

We are talking about cultural tradition rather than religion where women are completely hidden but for eyes. There is nothing in the Koran to indicate a woman must obliterate her identity in public.

In Australian, which is generally VERY tolerant, the culture is to speak and interact with one's fellow citizens FACE to FACE. It's considered, and rightly so, culturally offensive to most Australians to present as an unidentifiable person. A 'person' who could be any race, creed, age or either sex. Regardless of Ms Scutts stupid assertions about the movement hindering qualities of 'tent' garb, the occupant is completely disguised.

Australians are generally respectful and tolerant towards the diverse religions practised here. Provided adherents are LAW ABIDING and LEADERS people of good character we tend to regard religious affiliation as a positive attribute. However if clergy and/or members of any faith bring disrepute, (through unlawful conduct, inflammatory speech, discrimatory behaviour ect) to that religion, peaceful, lawful followers suffer the fallout. I'm not referring to just one religion here. However if asked about any 'faith' where followers are identified or perceived as reluctant to integrate into Australian society or adhere to Australian Law, most Australians will answer, Islam or Muslims.

But really - that's another topic.

I have no objection to religious dress provided the wearer's identity is retained. The Muslimas who want to wear the burqa really need make but one compromise, exposure of the face from above the brows to just under the chin to comply with what are considered acceptable standards for everyone else. They will certainly comply with their Holy Book which instructs both sexes to practice modesty in attire.

When you come to live in another country and culture you must expect to make some changes in order to fit in. If you, or your Australian born descendents, spouses etc cannot make such adjustment, I'd suggest a move to a country where both you and your fellow citizens will be comfortable.

As far as I know, my civil liberties are infringed, because I am not allowed my religious (recently converted pagan) garb which consists solely of sandals and a string around my waist.

This anti pagan discrimination needs to stop. I will be protesting my rights (summer only) outside town hall.

If the author is indeed serious about championing womens' human rights, why does she not go in 'to bat' for the unfairly-treated women who live in some Muslim counties?

The idea implicit in the author's arguments is that liberal democratic societies will have to compromise with Islamic ideology,because Moslems certainly won't compromise with liberal democracy, so for Moslem women, 1% of a loaf is better than nothing.

The notion that, the accommodation to Islamic misogyny is somehow respecting Moslem womens' human rights is a remarkable piece of sophistry, the problem is Islam, not entirely Western prejudices.
The solution to this dilemma is that Moslem women should participate fully in public life, any aspects of Islamic ideology that deny them that right should be not be tolerated.

The author presents the usual confusion between multiculturalism, "Islamohobia" and the bizarre notion that Moslems constitute a "race".

Raycom,

Yes,I've often wondered why Western feminists don't take their campaigns to Moslem countries. It's a real mystery isn't it?

Terrorism laws that shaped the Northern Ireland ‘troubles’ have been replaced with laws that shape how Muslim women are subjugated in France. Laws banning Muslim women’s ‘cover’ might yet come to Australia.

Jocelynne, in blaming the terrorism laws that the British invaders placed on the Irish settlers, for the troubles in Ireland, has twisted the issue around; ignoring the fact that in this case the Muslims equate to the new British arrivals, because they are the new arrivals in the country, trying to impose their way of dressing and religious views on the old inhabitants who don't like it.

Hitler branded the Jews with the star of David to isolate them from the mainstream. In donning these robes en masse the muslims are doing the same thing, separating themselves from the Australian mainstream . German experience proves that this is not a good thing. In fact it is the equivalent to practicing apartheid. Small groups of people like the skinheads who dress outrageously or judges in wigs as somebody mentioned above, are too small in number to be any huge threat to society as a whole, but the muslims number in the millions. That is a hugely different number and much more threatening than a few dozen or hundred outsiders like judges etc

I saw an interesting, informed and intelligent debate on this matter while overseas late last year.

The outcome was that Muslim women represented a tiny minority of the total population in France and of that group a very small number of those wore burqas.

It turned out that about 80% of all the burqa wearers were actually recent and overzealous converts to Islam, not a group that was being "forced" to wear them but women who had made a conscious and independent choice.

A law that targets a tiny minority of the population is somewhat strange. It's like saying blue-eyed people born on August 4th cannot use Public Transport between 4pm and 6pm on a weekday.

It's also amusing to think that in order to show it's wrong to force women to wear burqas they pass a law forcing them NOT to wear them.

I had the impression it was more more a local political point-scoring matter on behalf of their hard-right conservatives (like our own Tampa affair) than something of major concern to the general population that required urgent legislation.

It is funny how Jocelynne is so concernd about 'anti Muslim Hatred in Britain and Europe", when the only "hatred" being exhibited at the moment is Muslim hatred towards the people of the host European countries they now inhabit.

Yoo hoo Jocelynne. So far in Britain, there have been five serious Muslim terrorist incidents, four bombings (three were prevented by the alert Police), and one attempt to poison London's water supply (also thwarted by the police). Where is your article about Muslim hatred towards Britons and Europeans? Who is killing who here?

The act of wearing a burqua is a politcal act, in the same way that wearing a swastica armband is a political act. The wearing of a burqua denotes that the wearer is either a disciple of the most extreme forms of Islamofascism, or is at least the victim of a family who forces her to wear the uniform of militant Islam.

Jocelynne writes as if the dangers of Islamic fascism is none existent. Sorry girl, you must be a Klingon to think like that.

You had better get with the program Jocelynne, because the people who you are defending would like to see all of your rights as a female comjpletely destroyed. And I will stick my neck out and say that most white people would prefer Nazi totalitarianism to Muslim totalitarianism, on the basis that Muslim totalitarianism is worse.

So, unless you start supporting your own culture and your own people, the danger is that future generations of young white people, fearful of the cancer in their society, will begin to defend themselves by wearing swastica armbands. How will you react to that? Will you defend their right to use fashion to make a political statement that you oppose?

"The times they are a changin'" Jocelynne. In a future Europe where Muslims will become a majority, who's concept of "Human Rights" is diametrically opposed to your humanitarian ideals, your own kids might consider your multicultural ideals to be totally inappropriate to the continunce of enlightened western civilisation.

"It's also amusing to think that in order to show it's wrong to force women to wear burqas they pass a law forcing them NOT to wear them."

No Wobbles, we need legislation that is completely non-discrimatory.

It should be an offence to hide ones identity in public. Just as people wearing motorcycle helmets or other face covers are required to remove such before entering banks and other premises, wearing anything that obscures your identity in public areas needs to be illegal. Only exceptions being medical reasons.

There is no religious compulsion for Muslim women in Australia to wear the burqa or similar full head and body cover. It is a cultural gesture - one I am beginning to consider inflammatory, made by some Muslim women, or more likely required by their controllers - husbands or fathers, with a particular axe to grind.

If I remember correctly there was an online poll run by 9msn last year regarding this issue and over 90% of respondents agreed the burqa should be banned in Australia. It seems that as a Nation we find this garment highly inappropriate in our culture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR9LVf_KMO0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxbYBIlT6VE


Australia must have the only peaceful Muslims on the planet.....well so it seems.

LEAP

Bans on the burqa are a valuable lesson in the farce that is patriarchy. A male hegemony imposes cultural rules which women come to own for their very survival. A male hegemony from another culture then imposes cultural rules to overturn the cultural rules a male hegemony imposed in the first place, with apparent utter disregard for women. It's a power game between men of which women are the victims. It will not be until patriarchy is dismantled with provision for women's legislatures that women will have the opportunity to make their own choices. The bans makes men look just plain stupid.

I can't believe some of you seeing themselves as enlightened & democratic Australians. What a bunch of indoctrinated ignoramuses.

@ individual

"I can't believe some of you seeing themselves as enlightened & democratic Australians. What a bunch of indoctrinated ignoramuses".

Well,why don't you name some of these "ignoramuses" and provide evidence to support your opinion?

mac,
if you consider yourself an enlightened individual then just read the posts before mine.

@individual,

Do you mean all the posts (which includes my post,btw) or the previous two? You still haven't provided a critique. The implicit "any reasonable person would see that those people are bigots" argument really doesn't impress, unless it's supported by evidence.

To remove any ambiguities-in my opinion, the notion that Islam is, "just another religion" is dangerously naive, or informed by ignorance. Remember we're discussing Islam, not Moslems, or 'race'.

To Mr Individual.

Reasoned arguments and objective analysis trumps sneery one liners everytime. If you can't manage to support your premises with a logical position, then at least sit in the corner, button up, and wait until you have the confidence to cross swords with the people who's opinions you disagree with.

A bit of sneery sarcasm is acceptable, provided that you have the stones to stick your neck out and make assertions you are prepred to defend. But just sitting around and heckling the people who are prepared to verbally face off with others, is a cowardly tactic, and not worthy of any person who considers themselves intelligent.

Please come back when you have the guts to submit a position you are willing to argue.

If people like you are representative of the left wing position, then I am glad that you are on the opposing side, and not on my side. Any fair minded person who's opinion can be swayed by reasoned argument would hardly be impressed with people who can only sneer, heckle and insult.

mac & LEGO,
It is obvious you didn't & rather likely never will get the gist. You simply find it easier to snap back with accusations rather than answers. Typical of people who tolerate nonsense but not sense.
Me a leftie ? are you totally off colour today ?

[Deleted for abuse. Poster suspended.]

In Australia as in the U.K. and Europe, this trend is evident in attacks on multiculturalism. It is exemplified by the banning of ‘cover’ being worn by women in France, Belgium, parts of Italy and Barcelona, or in demands that governments engage in the outlawing of the scarf, the niqab, the burqah or equivalent forms of cover worn by some Muslim women. In Australia, Senator Cory Bernadi has said that a ban must proceed, in order to protect the Australian community from robbers and ‘ne’er do wells’ wrapping themselves up in burqahs to escape detection. How a miscreant could escape amidst the billowing skirts of the garment hanging about their legs and interfering with their perambulation is mystifying. Nonetheless, his call has been joined by Fred Nile, member of the NSW Legislative Council and leader of a political party known as the Christian Democrats. Other political voices have been raised in favour of a ban, although the countervailing position is currently holding favour. No legislation appears, as yet at least, to be in prospect.

There's a huge religious plot going on, and the major religions are behind paying the ones that are not welcome or do not try to fit in with multiculturalism, and Pat Condell is sees right through the game.

Religious leaders are going to try anything.

Just wait and see.

LEAP

How a miscreant could escape amidst the billowing skirts of the garment hanging about their legs and interfering with their perambulation is mystifying.
Quantumleap,
This is a perfect example of missing the point. Question, how do you identify a miscreant among several people wearing identical/very similar garments ?
I bet you couldn't identify one member of a brass band if they all wore hoods.

I'd rather not have a ban, I want less government interference in peoples lives, not more.

I do though disagree with many of the arguments used to oppose the ban.

Most of this has already been said by others.

The law already limit's peoples freedoms to dress as they please. Rarely can people go about nude in public and for the most part women are not allowed to go topless in public.

Muslim's are not a race, the racism argument is blatently false.

Most of what I've read on the topic suggests that for the most part the wearing of the full face covering in western countries is a choice by the woman, not imposed by a male who won't let her out of the house without one.

The wearing of full face coverings isw not mandated by Islam.

I tend to agree with the observation that the wearing of the full face coverings is beginning to sound like an "Up Yours" statement by some of the wearers, for many it is certainly an attempt to show muslim identity, to be marked out as different.

R0bert

Great.

Another thread about what women should wear.

Either they are banned from looking as if they walked out of an explosion at "Tents-R-Us"

Or

Blamed for dressing like sluts.

I demand a law banning budgie smugglers - far more offensive than any bit of T & A.

Sheesh, this world is barking mad.

Everybody knows deep down this is all about Muslim bashing.

I kinda think it would be way cool if there were more religions with crazy get up. I mean the orthodox Jews like their little saucers on their head and those crazy sideburns, and I think the monks should wear their wonderful orange gear more often.

In star wars, it looks really cool when all the people have strange get-up, so I reckon we should encourage it.

Really, when men the world over are oppressed into wearing the same identical suits for the most part of the day, and tradies are made to wear humiliating fluro gear, I think women have us beat on this one.

They get so much more scope on what they can wear, but with such responsibility comes judgement. So be it. They seem to dedicate whole magazines to what each other are wearing so I think it's a bit rich to be upset that the suit and fluro oppressed dare to have an opinion.

But back to the Jews, did you know they are co-opting telstra and Energy Australia gear for their Eruv. They also want to build poles and run string between them for no other reason but to let women legitamately carry car keys and push prams in the daytime. I'm thinking we should spend the money instead liberating them from such a crazy belief system.

http://north-shore-times.whereilive.com.au/news/story/renewed-jewish-push-for-st-ives-enclosure/

Houellebecq - I for one, and I'm guessing mine is a majority opinion, have no quarrel with 'religious' attire. I wear a cross to identify my Christian belief.

I respect the Islamic religious edict that both men and women dress modestly. No problems with the ladies wearing jeans, socks, long sleeved tunic and head scarf on searingly hot days, bar thinking the practice is likely unhealthy as well as uncomfortable. However I can see their faces and features, can identify them if they return to my business, or me to theirs and feel comfortable communicating with them.

I do object to the complete obliteration of identity as occurs when a person is arrayed in one of the (stone-aged) CULTURAL garments designed to completely cover body head to toe leaving only a slit, or mesh panel for (obscured) sight.

I object being confronted by a pair of eyes (or glasses) peering from behind swathes of fabric - in the same manner as to a full face helmet, youths wearing hoodies pulled over their eyes and zippered up high and balaclava wearers generally just evoke instant alarm.

So leave out the bogus religion argument. It's about culture, what is and isn't acceptable here and also about security, safety and equality for all. As stated earlier, if the 'tent' wearers modified the garb so the face was visible from brows to just under chin, no problems. And Allah is still going to approve ....

Well I like difference. Except when it means erecting unnecessary street poles based on a superstision. How come the Jews are so close to people appeasing such madness and visual pollution? I reckon it's to do with religious bigotry.

I find it intriguing that I cant see the person except for their eyes. I get turned on by each unintentional flash of eyebrow and tell them so.

BTW: They banned hoodies in certain places in london, and I thought it an agressive attack on teenaged males. How dare all those creepy testosterone fuelled males stand around in groups with warm ears!

BTW: What is it about the identifying belief? Why do you have to advertise? Is that why people have a fish sticker on the back of their cars? Do they let other fish posters (posers) through the traffic and stop non-fish cars form changing lanes?

I think they should ban fish stickers on cars. It's an exclusionary ruse to help christians in traffic. If christains are so calm and peace loving, they don't need any extra help in the traffic that's for sure, they should have the most patience. Or maybe that's why they're calm, it's nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with favourable treatment on the roads. What a scam!

I think Ms Scutt misses the point of the force behind the calls for banning Muslim garb - it's because so many people in Western countries, to which Muslim people have come, have had such a poor experience of so many of those Muslim people. This has been both direct experience, and mediated experience - Islamic terrorism being only the most obnoxious.
So many people in Western counties do not want Muslim people in their countries any more, and do not want any more influence by Islam in their community. They see a ban on the most visible expression of Islam as a way of starting that process. They would also like to stop Muslim men from influencing their community any more, but do not know how to do this.
Until Islam as an ideology can be seen to be compatable with Western values, paticularly democracy and a slow resort to violence, both of which Islam does not display, people in Western countries will continue to want to restrict the influence (including visibiltiy) of Islam.
As ibn Wariq writes, most Muslims are better than their religion would have them be, on most issues, most of the time. And as I add, it's just as well, as Islam is a prefeudal form of Fascism, and has no place in a modern society. Everyone has every right to be very worried about the influence of Islam on their society.

divine_msn,

Does this mean no more Santas should be walking the streets at Christmas time?

Houellebecq, your posts are a hoot.

Personally, I'm sick to death of being pressed up against the sweaty naked flesh of blokes in singlets on public transport. I think everyone should be made to cover up before they can buy a ticket and they also need to pass a deodorant and flatulence test.

I also don't think anyone should be allowed to travel on long haul flights unless they're covered up because I don't want to sit next to a nearly naked person for 13 hours when I don't know who they are or why they've chosen to be nearly naked on a freezing aircraft. How suspicious is that?

A burka is a strange garment to many Westerners, and we all know how incapable many Westerners are of coping with anything they find the slightest bit strange. They just want someone to make it go away. These people should be made to cope. Why do we always have to pander to the fearful? It does nobody any good.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/french-muslim-women-arrested-defying-ban-wearing-veils/story?id=13347753

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611398

Lets see what all the fuss is about. Pat Condell does have a few points concerning the terrorist threats around the world, and walking into banks not covered up is a no no in Australian law, and lets face it, its just a religion. I mean the chances of there being a god in the 21 century are pretty slim at best, and women are just doing it cause there partner is forcing the poor ladies......and what a waste. IMO...these women are not getting enough sun light and some children are contracting rickets. This is not healthy.

The French themselves in the 16th century all wore masks and wigs. I think multiculturalism will all take time to adjust with each other, but if your just wearing it to get up people noses, well thats what Pat thinks, and many others do too.

I dont really see the big deal, other than the fact that face to face interactions are needed in modern times.

LEA

Houellebecq – in reply to your attempt at satire, I too appreciate diversity. There is plenty of it in Australia. Wear what you like within boundaries of what's lawful and socially and culturally appropriate. Going in public totally disguised – like a criminal, is inappropriate. Wearing Nazi insignia or KKK robes likewise. Shadow Minister wants to express his new religious beliefs by setting forth in Pagan garb, sandals and waist string (Thanks Shadow! Wonderful mental image lol) but I fear he will be arrested. Recently there were attempts to outlaw ‘Club Patches’ of bikie gangs involved in criminal and antisocial behaviour and so on … Restraints exist!

In almost every Australian town or city you'll encounter great human variety - complexion, features, size, shape, age, clothing and adornment. Consider yourself fortunate living here and able to enjoy these sights. Life is very much restricted in so many other places.

I thought I’d made clear my lack of objection to ‘religious’ garb or any 'costume' subject to the above. My argument is NOBODY should be going about in public covered as to be unrecognisable. I’d like to see legislation brought about to enforce it. For everyone - no discrimination, no excuses. Only exceptions - medical (rare) and special occupational, both requiring documentation. If you read my post, I stated burqa wearers need only modify their robes to expose face from above brows to under chin – problem solved. Allah will still approve. Modesty requirements will be truly fulfilled.

Wobbles – unless yours has a full face mask, please wear your Santa costume anytime, bless you child!.

BTW in todays safety and litigation obsessed environment, has anyone considered consequences arising from harm to self and/or others as result of burqa impaired vision? If a burqa clad driver collided with me, would that person be able to play the religious/cultural card to mitigate responsibility? Maybe Scutt the Lawyer could answer that one. I have encountered such a driver. 'The Sack' was horrifically erratic and had three unsecured small children in back. Pretty obvious by her posture she had 'vision issues. Scary and dangerous!

Houellebecq – in reply to your attempt at satire, I too appreciate diversity. There is plenty in Australia. Wear what you like within boundaries of what's lawful and socially and culturally appropriate. Going in public totally disguised – like a criminal, is inappropriate. Wearing Nazi insignia or KKK robes likewise. Shadow Minister wants to express his new religious beliefs by setting forth in Pagan garb, sandals and waist string (Thanks Shadow! Wonderful mental image lol) but alas, he will be arrested. Recently there were attempts to outlaw ‘Club Patches’ of bikie gangs involved in criminal and antisocial behaviour and so on … Restraints exist!

In almost every Australian town or city you'll encounter great human variety - complexion, features, size, shape, age, clothing and adornment. Consider yourself fortunate living here and able to enjoy these sights. Life is very much restricted in so many other places.

Thought I’d made clear my lack of objection to ‘religious’ garb or any 'costume' subject to the above. My argument is NOBODY should be going about in public covered as to be unrecognisable. I’d like to see legislation brought about to enforce it. For everyone - no discrimination, no excuses. Only exceptions - medical (rare) and special occupational, both requiring documentation. If you read my post, I stated burqa wearers need only modify their robes to expose face from above brows to under chin – problem solved. Allah will still approve. Modesty requirements will be truly fulfilled.

Wobbles – unless yours has a full face mask, please wear your Santa costume anytime, bless you child!.

BTW in todays safety and litigation obsessed environment, has anyone considered consequences arising from harm to self and/or others as result of burqa impaired vision? If a burqa clad driver collided with me, would that person be able to play the religious/cultural card to mitigate responsibility? Maybe Scutt the Lawyer could answer that one. I have encountered such a driver. 'The Sack' was horrifically erratic and had three unsecured small children in back. Pretty obvious by her posture she had 'vision issues. Scary and dangerous!

I think we are moving in different directions Miranda.

I would like more acceptance of nudity too. I genuienly am all for variety and difference. I'm with briar, nobody has the right not to be offended. You can be offended at people who refuse to show you their face, you can even refuse top talk to them and mock them like I do, but it's a bit much to designate what people can and cant wear.

BTW: 'Going in public totally disguised – like a criminal, is inappropriate.' Inapropriate? To what? I often contemplate going out in public in disguise just for my own amusement. I would love to have the balls to experiment at airports, there must be some stage of the check-in process where it is not breaking any laws to wear a fake moustache and to totally change your appearance.

briar rose,

Haha thanks. Though I did give counsellors a serve on the other thread:-) Nobody really understood I was holding a mirror up to the hysterical treatment of SRE 'evangalists'. I'm sure you would have.

'These people should be made to cope. Why do we always have to pander to the fearful? It does nobody any good.'

Very wise. I'm all for broadening people's horizons and comfort zones.

Aaah Houellebecq! Until something really nasty happens to you or loved ones, then you'll be first to cry foul and ask "How could this be allowed to happen?"

Diversity is fine but as well as the advantages there are drawbacks. One of the disadvantages we live with daily is the proliferation of regulations and red tape which has evolved to deal with the issues diversity has delivered.

Personally I am comfortable with nudity. Probably a result of a 12 year career in Health. However a lot of people aren't - as a group the Muzzies would be among the most offended, so 'indecent exposure' remains on the rap sheet.

I am interested though as to whether you believe any attire should be prohibited or is it no holds barred? I mentioned KKK robes. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a group wearing this outfit, another total disguise, to roam the streets of say Redfern?

Should restrictions be allowed to apply for certain dress standards in any situation? Should half-blinded burqa wearers be free to drive in their garb? Should workers be prevented wearing flip flops on work sites? Should Shopping Centres, Pubs & Clubs and other venues where many people congregate drop all dress standard requirements?

'I am interested though as to whether you believe any attire should be prohibited or is it no holds barred? I mentioned KKK robes. Should it be perfectly acceptable for a group wearing this outfit, another total disguise, to roam the streets of say Redfern? '

Yeah I don't see why not. For a start, it should be every civilian's right not to be recorded by the ubiquitous CCTV. Also, wearing that gear doesn't necessarily imply an allegience to the KKK. Thridly, the KKK has more relevance in southern USA, not so much here. Fourthly, are we starting into the thought crime territory?

Even Nazi uniforms, perfectly valid tools for parody. No doubt offensive to some, as all black humour has the potential to be, but without any definitively provocative *action*, I'm happy for people to wear what they like.

'Should restrictions be allowed to apply for certain dress standards in any situation? Should half-blinded burqa wearers be free to drive in their garb?'

How one presents themselves is an individual thing, and should be covered by free expression.

Of course, private clubs should be free to exclude members who don't dress in a manner that they desire, but public space should be a free for all.

I have a theory that short people, including many asian people are terrible drivers due to this peripheral vision problem. So be it, we cant all be excellent drivers. I'm sure a solution can be found if it *really* is a significant problem. Look at the stats and see if it is, then work from there.

'One of the disadvantages we live with daily is the proliferation of regulations and red tape which has evolved to deal with the issues diversity has delivered.'

Would this not be totally negated by my free for all? Once you start trying to please everyone.... Did you ever see the South Park episode about Christmas?

'"How could this be allowed to happen?"'
I'm prety confident that the reduced peripharal vision of women wearing traditional head dress doesn't pose a significant threat.

What is never pointed out is that the burqua says more about men than
it says about women.
The worry the moslem men have is that if other men see their wives is
that they will be raped. The women would run the risk of gang rape.

Does that ring a bell with you ?

So probably the best solution is to ban moslem men.

Baz - you may well have a point!

"A foreign student jailed in Melbourne for seven sexual assaults told the court he was upset at the way Australian women dressed and behaved.

Libyan Almahde Ahmad Atagore, 28, was sentenced to three years behind bars yesterday for sexual assaulting a number of young women in Melbourne in August and September last year, the Herald Sun reports.

Atagore was shocked by the cultural differences and felt isolated and depressed, particularly as he did not have a mosque nearby, said County Court Judge Margaret Rizkalla.

He told a psychiatrist he did not like how Australian women dressed, leaving him angry but also aroused.

He indecently assaulted four women outside the Mentone Hotel on two consecutive nights and also attacked two young girls, including a 13-year-old, while they were using an escalator at Flinders St station."

Two aspects of this case disturb me. 1) The attitude of this SCUMBAG who would have come here to 'study' with reasonable knowledge of the country and customs but who plays the 'culture' & 'religion' cards to try to mitigate his offensive criminal behaviour.
2)The manifestly inadequate sentencing of 3 years - of which he'll likely serve less than 12 months. That will equate to about 2 months for each of his six victims including the 13yr old.

We can only hope that when scumbag is released it will be into the hands of Immigration, straight to a detention centre and a one way ticket home. And if anyone in the prison system wants to render him incapable of further sexual activity in the meantime, it'll be a favour to the human race.

divine_msn
Being in Melbourne you may not remember the moslem gangs that raped
a number of women in Sydney. Their excuse was they were asking for it.
Remember the cats meat controversy ?

One gang the Bilal gang romed around in a group of four or six if I remember.
The leaders got 35 years later reduced to 25 years.

However, it demonstrates why the moslem men want them covered.
Basically, it is so moslem men won't rape them.
However they think we are the same as them and would rape any
uncovered women we could access. The women probably think the same way.

So in effect the demand to cover their women is an insult to Australian men.

The burka did not stop rape in Kosovo or Bosnia. Rape is illegal and those perpetrators in Sydney were convicted.

As much as the burka represents archaic social morays about men and women in some cultures (including insulting to men about lack of control of their sexual appetites that they can't possibly see a bit of naked ankle lest they turn into ravaging beasts) it would be far more dictatorial should governments start dictating what people can wear barring obvious security issues.

It is trying to address a broader perceived social problem by nibbling at the periphery.

What should be illegal is the 'forced' wearing of the burka and any violence in response of failing to cover-up which under DV laws is already illegal. The only argument in favour of a ban would be to ensure women are not forced into the wearing of the burka and that would be hard to police, overall the burden is on individuals to make their own choices, not governments.

It's interesting that I do have a problem with interacting in person with another human being while their face is obscured. Eyes can speak volumes, but we do rely on other facial expressions as an integral part of normal human communication.

By the same token, if we go back in time only a hundred or so years ago, Western women were covered from head to toe as ordinary cultural dress...one wasn't considered dressed unless they were "properly" attired in public - you wouldn't dream of leaving the house without a hat, and often gloves as well.

We've changed a lot in a relatively short space of history, but our great grandmothers were probably covered up as much as most Islamic women are today.

Unfortunately, Muslim mens' behaviour is worse than you think. I have a friend who works with confined Muslim women, and she says the hardest thing about her job is wondering which of the women will be sitting in the corner crying, because she had been raped by her husband, and his brothers and cousins, the night before. And another Muslim friend (a very white-skinned convert) said that the only reason she started wearing the hijab was to stop all the Muslim men she came accross undressing her with their eyes (she lives in a suburb with a high persentage of Muslims).
As I'm fond of quoting, ibn Wariq comments that most Muslims are better than their religion would have them be, on most issues, most of the time. But the Koran's and hadiths' comments on woman, and their rights, are appalling. In Islam, women are possessions, to be treated any way their owner sees fit. And non-Muslim women fare even worse, if that's possible.

Poirot - if your great granny was of European or British Isle descent she would have worn more clothing than contempory Australians. Climate dictated the extent of cover and styles in the 'old countries' which then transferred to a new settlement as the prevailing fashion. If she was of indigenous heritage she may well have worn nothing more than a woven grass belt.

In all old (from mid 1850s on) photos of my family, none of the women are wearing anything resembling the burqa and nothing that obscures their faces. While clothing was generally extensive in that dresses were usually around ankle length, sleeves past elbow and necklines quite high, we have a few 'saucy' lasses in evening dress with rather revealing necklines and short sleeves. By the same token we don't have any happy snaps of Great Grandpa in shorts, teeshirt and pluggers. Both sexes covered up. Three piece suits were standard for the fellas.

I'm sorry but I think your analogy is way off except for the word 'most' in " .. our great grandmothers were probably covered up as much as most Islamic women are today"

That's because MOST Islamic women do not wear tents. That's because their religion does not require them to wear tents. MOST devout Muslim women wear MODEST clothing as prescribed in their Koran, such as long sleeve tunics over trousers and MANY, though not all, wear a scarf or headdress that covers hair and in some styles, neck as well.

Once again people continue to confuse RELIGION with CULTURE. Full cover identity obscuring garments such as the burqa come from a CULTURE where women are considered property to be hidden from the eyes of all but the intimate family circle and female friends (if she's allowed them). This is something I abhor, however my argument is much wider. For any Australian to go routinely in public covered as to obliterate their identity, namely the face, is 1) Culturally inappropriate and 2) A security concern and should be banned under law

divine_msn,

I was merely noting that the cultural dress code for Western women has altered a lot in a relatively short time...even for people living in the northern hemisphere.

As I stated, I do have a problem with interacting with another person who is wearing substantial covering over their face.

Btw, my biological heritage is Scottish and native American - so the best of both worlds, covering-wise, there. : )

True Poirot - but did any of your ancestors that you know of require the women of the family to be 'invisible' in public? To have no identity whatsoever outside the immediate family circle?

There's a huge gulf between 'fashion' which tends to evolve fairly quickly and in response to external factors such as climate and lifestyle and 'custom' where mores are dictated by those who weld power.

divine_msn has a good point there. The scarf over the head has quite a stylistic look for the modern Muslim's women, but the stand-up letter-box out-fit.....well I dont want to point out what might be the real case of why some wear it, and its possible they might be just butt ugly! I mean that, I would understand. However these women are anything but, and its so wonderful to see their smiley faces, and that I think is the whole point of why some dont like it.

P/S For the blokes...well..Thats only a face a mother can love:)..I think you should keep the beard:)

Again, that I can understand.

I cant say I've ever seen one in Sidney and there's roughly 3 million people of all walks of life there.

You all know my stance on religion, and I think if your out to get attention, your not doing it for Australia, your doing it for yourself. Like I say to all Multicultural Australians........if you dont like to live in a huge international society, maybe Australia is not for you.

Good luck.

LEA

Poirot do you ever talk to people on the Phone?

I avoid it myself.

Nobody thinks the Orthodox Jews look silly? Ever lived in Golders Green?

Are the men oppressed because they have those crazy sideburns?

'if you dont like to live in a huge international society, maybe Australia is not for you.'

Good work LEAP.

In the end, all the arguments are either supposition of the oppression of individual women, with no proof of such, and with some kind of amnesia about domestic violence laws, or a general 'it makes me uncomfortable' to talk just to a person's eyes.

Well, I don't like laws that are there to stop people being uncomfortable. Deal with it. Don't talk to them if you don't want to.

As I said, I like to pass comment on their eyebrows if I catch a glimpse.

There is no human right not to be offended and to be allowed to stay in your comfort zone when coercing with all members of society.

No Houellebecq, the arguments are mainly about what is appropriate in Australia, whether it is reasonable to expect immigrants to adapt to the country of adoption and the security implications of persons obscuring their identity.

There has been mention by one poster about violence towards women in the closed communities of this particular culture but generally most respondents seem unsure as to whether the women wear full facial cover out of duress or voluntarily.

Lots of people out there look 'funny' - whether those who favour a non-mainstream style of dress and grooming, like the Jews you refer to and others of similar ilk through to the many fashion victims one sees in the streets daily. However since none of these folk go about with identity concealed that is not the argument - is it?

As for you making comments about flashes of eyebrow - hopefully not when the 'tent' is occupied by menfolk. It may earn her unnecessary grief when she gets home.

The fact that we have had numerous articles written and discussions about the burqa popping up, just about every few weeks on OLO for the past five years at least, it is obvious that this is a very worrying and concerning topic for many people out there and it is not going to go away. The feelings about it obviously run deep.

Religions do become tribes when they don't intergrate and there have been many wars between religious tribes in history.

When I was a young girl growing up in Australia, Catholics were the most fundamental and strictest adherents of the Christian denominations and it was frowned upon if they married outside their faith, but today Catholics marry non-catholics all the time because the religion has lost it's overzealousness and become more modern and less archaic in it’s beliefs,although still remaining Catholic.

If we are to have peace then this is what has to happen with the Moslim religion, it has to lose some of it's archaic beliefs and become more 21st century in the way it interprets the Koran. This goes for all other religions in the country as well. Fundamentalism divides, tolerant modern thinking in religions creates cohesion because the gulf between different beliefs is not so wide. Hence the apprehension about the fundamentalist archaic way of dressing. After all, isn't the God and Allah that all religions worship, one and the same despite the different doctrines.

The best thing for the Moslims and everybody else in Australia including all other religions, is for them all to practice their religion in a sensible,tolerant way, not a way that sets up huge divides or barriers. The moderating down of the Burqa is a start in this process. After all women should appear as real entities on the streets not as just some non-existant strange presence under floating black sheets. Women do after all represent half the human race, men will just have to deal with that reality and stop trying to cover them over with big black bedspreads. Get real.

Well said Cherful. I agree.
I was kicked off early in the piece because I was over zelous in the was I described Jocelynne Scutt.
So I'll try again. Jocelynne Scutt being in the Law profession & dealing mostly with womens issues has become biased towards those issues. Therfore her thinking on womens issues become clouded by her involvement. She, possibly, thinks that the whole world is like the world she is involved with.
It isn't. Therefore her opinions are totaly invalid & not worth the time of day to the normal person.

I hope that this is a more satisfactory explanation of the view I wanted to express.

No Houellebecq, the arguments are mainly about what is appropriate in Australia, whether it is reasonable to expect immigrants to adapt to the country of adoption and the security implications of persons obscuring their identity.
Well that's nice, isn't, and I agree. The witch hunting parties are sharpening their spears, well religion gets to walk free and say what-ever they like. Interesting little bunch I must say:) Question. If every human from where-ever is the cake recipe, and multiculturalism is the oven, then why isn't it cooking as well as some make out?

Yes sorry, to the Sidney Morning Herald columnist:) Sydney! There:) All better:)

I simply Quote Pat Cordell's thoughts on the matter, and again! I still don't know what all the fuss is. Iam well known for the support of womens rights and I still support the idea, that Muslim women are not free to wear what they like, and freedoms of speech! don't be silly.....only religion has that right.

LEA