It is the health (lack of vitamin D) that concerns me more and is a significant health problem.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/vitamin-d-deficiency

However, peripheral vision may also be affected - I don't know. That could be important for road safety. Does anyone know for sure?

As for walking into doors, not very common, Shadow Minister. Generally an excuse for bruising brought about by domestic violence, ask any nurse working in emergency.

The wearing of the burqa holds distinct similarities to the early Chinese tradition of foot-binding - both appearing only to satisfy some male aspiration, and neither appearing to serve any female aspiration - save to satisfy male whim, and so improve the chances of attracting a husband. This certainly places the female in a role of subservience, and is a form of blackmail.

Both male and female in so many cultures utilise various forms of external adornment to enhance their individual attractiveness to the opposite sex, and it would appear that the burqa may serve a similar purpose - by representing a certain innocence and respectability of the wearer. One cannot fail to observe, however, that whereas in so many cultures the use of adornment by the female is exclusively within her power and is to serve her own aspirations, in the case of the burqa it can only be concluded that the female has no real choice, and the purpose is principally a matter of subservience to male dictates.

Some may use the burqa to hide their features out of feelings either of embarrassment or shyness. Such motivation can display a lack of self-confidence, and a lack of individual freedom for self-actualisation. Such motivation would again confirm a subservience to a male construct of attractiveness and self-worth - and should be considered alien in our western liberalised society.

One may not ignore the religious aspect of the wearing of the burqa, so apparent in areas where sharia law is strictly enforced. The west has been loathe to declare any religious movements illegal, but this is not unknown where practices have been proven to be contrary to accepted morality or to the exercise of individual liberties.

Those who have no ill-intent, have no need to obscure their faces - whether by helmet, hoodie, pantie-hose or mask - and move freely and with confidence in our society. Similar freedom should apply to all, and the burqa should therefore be held to be unacceptable and out of place in a truly "free" society.

"and the burqa should therefore be held to be unacceptable and out of place in a truly "free" society."

Perhaps so: it's OK to let the burqa be considered socially "unacceptable" and out of place, it's OK to hold it in contempt, so long as it is not made illegal. The state has no right to create any type of society - not even a "free" society - that's an abuse of power called "social engineering" and the state, being an involuntary organization has no right to impose anything on people who expressed no desire in the first place to be engineered by it.

One may leave one's oppressive family, one may leave one's oppressive organized-religion, one may leave their oppressive mates, but how can one leave the state (except into the jaws of another state)?

So better live in a free state with a not-truly-free society than in a free society under a not-truly-free state.

why don't we ban budgie smugglers, fatties wearing bikinis or bare mid-riffs, little girl beauty competitions, and so on. Whatever offends us. After-all why stop at burqas. There's all sorts of clothing that someone can inevitably find offensive. From see-through blouses or revealing tops to tight short shorts - to naked buttocks being flashed. If we expect that we can wear what we like in our society - then why do we draw the line at other people not being able to do the same. I agree it should be a matter of choice - providing that no-one is being intimidated or forced to do so.

Has anyone noticed the news about the woman in the burqa who has her conviction for lodging a false complaint against police quashed, because the police could not prove it was she who lodged the complaint. She, (well we must presume it was she) has now lodged a claim for costs against the police.

This woman is protected by our laws, and apparently the police are powerless in their attempts to identify her, she refuses to remove her burqa (although in a Muslim country she would have to) so they can verify her identity visually, they can't use finger prints, it seems hers aren't on file.

So from here on any person in a burqa will be able to challenge any traffic fine, or for that matter any infringement because the identity of the miscreant cannot be verified. Now that is freedom!!

Yuyutsu,

To me, the use of the burqa represents neither a truly "free" society nor a truly "free" State - for to me the burqa represents a denial of freedom for the females involved, and an abuse of power by the men involved. Irrespective of the motivations involved, the result is the females are either brainwashed, coerced or dis-empowered. The females may think they are exercising free choice, but my feeling is that, like captives, they are actually demonstrating an illusion of free concurrence with the will of the oppressor, when the reality is that they unconsciously live in fear.

Some of course may be reveling in the expression of their individuality. I would contend that they could find another way, and one not so confronting to our common understanding of the bounds of freedom of expression.

You seem to contend that individuals are always free to move away, to choose not to comply, but is this being truly realistic?

This issue may not be directly comparable with female circumcision, but I feel there are parallels. There is a point where lines must be drawn.

Where should the line be drawn to protect people from an oppression that they themselves do not recognise or acknowledge? That is the question.

I freely admit that I am prejudiced against any and all religious practices which endeavour to set people apart. Cultural differences, freely chosen and willingly and happily expressed are quite a different matter, and should be embraced. Oppressive and divisive practices, however, should be opposed, wherever they are found. At least, for better or for worse, this is my opinion.