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?