Jay,

The last link you posted is thought-provoking to be sure.

Islam finds/found itself a respectable and capable form in places like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Libya. Join the dots and we'll find that all these places were and still are under assault from outside forces. Why is that? Their leaders are all evil, duh! In the world outside of MSM however, Gaddafi, Hussain et al. were solid leaders; engaged in no worse atrocities than what the Atlantic powers are still doing now. Today, those who want to see stability in the Middle East should be supporting Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian government forces are working together as one for national sovereignty: Shi'ite, Sunni, Alawite. It's a united defense against barbarism and international stirrers.

Back to the topic at hand. Is petty dialogue on "banning the Burqa" the best discussion we can muster on Islam? It brings out two extremes: the bogan bigots and the nonsensical egalitarians - neither offer anything of substance and are clueless on the geopolitics which shape the reason why Islam has become the focus of our attention in the first place.

Not much chance of a referendum getting up on this topic so that aspect is mostly a moot point.

Governments already place restrictions on attire for a variety or reasons.

So called public decency prohibits public nudity in most parts of Australia and as I understand it includes legal consequences for nudity on private property if visible outside that property (not sure about nudity visible to uninvited people on private property).

People are prohibited from wearing other items of apparel which cover the face in some situations.

There are already restrictions in place regarding driving with restricted vision.

I don't personally believe that a religious belief should trump law, if a restriction is required so badly that the law is used to override an individuals choice that restriction is required regardless of religious choices.

I don't seek more government in peoples free choice. The wearing of the niqab etc should be restricted on the same basis as the wearing of any other item of clothing which hides the face or restricts vision. If the person choosing to wear attire which limits their ability to take part in public life does not like the consequences they have a choice (and if someone is forcing them to wear that clothing we have laws about that as well).

R0bert

Perhaps some Muslim women prefer the overall covering as no one can see that their husband has beaten them up.

Is Mise,

That falls under domestic abuse. Unfortunately, many non-Muslim woman would envy the opportunity to cover their wounds.

As pointed out above, referendums in Australia are used to amend the Constitution. What Hanson needs to call for is a plebiscite, which is a non-binding way of finding out what people want or think. As it stands now, section 116 of the Constitution guarantees free exercise of religion (amongst other things). Thus, if islamic women view wearing a veil as an expression of their religion, they are protected by while doing so. The Federal government may make mo law which abridges this freedom.

Paula Gerber is opposed to Australians voting directly to create the sort of society they think Australia should be. It is just amazing how people like Paula despise and mistrust their own people, and wish to deny them a direct say in what sort of world they wish to live in. I have always suspected that socialists were control freaks with a superiority complex, and Paula is helping to confirm that view.

A referendum on banning the burqua would be a wonderful way to gauge public opinion on Muslim immigration and multiculturalism, which our politicians would be forced take notice of. It would also be a wonderful way to stick it to the most fanatical Muslims in Australia who wish to display their contempt for the Australian lifestyle, and their social separation from the rest of us.

Paula argues against the referendum on two grounds.

The first, is that referendums rarely succeed. The reason for that, Paula, is because the electorate you despise never gets a say in what subjects should be on the agenda of any referenda. Instead, we get stupid proposals shoved in our faces like the present Catch-22 proposal to fight racism by making aborigines a special race. But a referendum to stick it to the Muslims would be very popular, and you know it.

The second, is the usual whine about Human Rights. Human rights are little more than a left wing wish list where the ordinary citizens which Paula despises, find out that criminals, terrorists, and country shopping illegal immigrants have more rights than they do. The electorate is increasingly aware that lefties like Paula have selective visions when it comes to Human rights. The motley collection of taxpayer funded, state Human Rights organisations were conspicuously missing in action when Andrew Bolt was on trial for having the effrontery to engage in freedom of speech.