System landmark case. It would have created an almighty furor.

In a true Democracy, it is easier said than done, to justify and dictate, how women should dress. The " slutwalk " saga, in Melbourne, was an unmitigated calamity !

No one has ever condemned his holiness the Dalai Lama, for his outfit. Nun's habits, masks, m/c helmets, fencing face-masks, ski face protectors etc, hardly raise a heckle.
Susan Callagher's miffed outrage, is an reenactment of a case before a NSW Court, where a woman in burka, was finally arrested by a Policeman ( who evidently didn't know the Law ) after apprehending her, for a minor traffic violation. Premier O'Farrell, has since indicated, finger printing suspects ?? as a substitute ? Weird.

A gendarme can arrest anyone he/she suspects of breaking the Law, and is authorized to use force eg. handcuffs, handgun etc, in making the arrest anywhere in the State.

Tellingly, the Supreme Court, if put to the test, will rule it unconstitutional. Without merit, and against the guaranteed freedoms of association, religion, speech etc. Any Constitutional amendment must be approved by a Referendum, which is unlikely. So much, for a lost cause-celebre. The audacious " bikie gang laws " was recently declared invalid - so much for Attorney Generals in SA, Qld, NSW, - who frame legislation, launch appeals, appoint Magistrates, and generally restore Community confidence in the Courts, across the Land.

Wearing the full covering is truly liberating for women, when more women realize its potential I predict that it will become a fashon statement (and we all know that fashon thrives on female stupidity).
No more bad hair days; why worry about pimples or facial hair.
Those women who need to shave on a regular basis will be freed of the necessity to cover over their barbers' rash and or razor nicks.

You get up in the morning looking like death warmed up but you've got no sickies left?
Who cares, on with a fresh tent and you're lookin' good.

This style of clothing may be monotonous but think of the visual improvements, all those fat and/or ugly women who now appear in public in frightening reality will be but part of an anonomous mass.

Think too of the husbands, they will be able to benifit, along with their Muslim brothers, in that almost no one will be knowing that they lost out in the mating game or that they regularly bash their wives, equally the wife doesn't have to miss work because of a fat lip or bruises in general.

The hijab/burga/whatever is democratic, or at least socialist, in that it gives the less appealing women a chance at the level playing field.

Would you be ok with a burka wearing person behind you in a que at a bank, or anywhere else for that matter. You can not assume the person in the burka is a female.

Sure you can make that assumption, you might be wrong though.

If we go to a foreign country we have to observe their law, customs and culture - so it is only reasonable for us to expect the same.
Face recognition software has been developed for security and combating crime, and the human brain has face recognition capability to read and respond to facial expression during communication and interaction - to respond to intent, honesty or deception, welcome or threat.
If people generally, or a portion of our society, decided to go out wearing balaclava's or face scarves with only eyes showing, we would expect our laws to be changed to ban such attire - for public security.
Camouflage is associated with hunting or criminal intent, not with openness and honesty.
Anyone could be hiding under a burqa, perhaps a raving suicide bomber rather than the expected modest female - who is to know?

In a society or culture which condones "honour" killings and the stoning of females for adultery (but treats the male accomplices as innocent "injured" parties), is it any wonder that young males have little respect for females (except "in their place"), and think that any female not dressed in mufti is just asking to be raped? Is not the wearing of the burqa directly associated with such behaviour and attitudes? Are such attitudes acceptable to Oz society?
In strict Islamic countries it is the religion rather than the state which rules, and what we could consider to be "vigilantes" enforce the "religious law" at will, and as "expected" behaviour. Such behaviour and attitude is also alien to Oz society.

France stood up for its culture, and for the outlawing of the unacceptable "attitudes" and connotations associated with face covering. Oz also needs to stand on its moral values and do likewise.

Oz has a culture of openness worthy of universal acclaim, and which is something to be valued and protected. Whether tourist, visitor, immigrant or refugee, all should be expected to conform to our cultural norms, and to leave all feuds, prejudices and unacceptable attitudes and customs at home - or just don't come!

Just one little point,KNO3,

"Camouflage is associated with hunting or criminal intent, not with openness and honesty"

Camouflage is associated with our Armed Forces in that they generally wear uniforms in camoflage pattern and theirs' is an honourable profession, hunting is also honourable; I have never known of criminals wearing camoflage.

Camoflage is also a naturally occuring defence/hunting colouration among many species of plant and animal.

Perhaps the word that you want is 'disguise'?