Atta Madam N*ppy Ninja

All women should be required to don Middle Ages Nun-ware http://www.tumbit.com/news-image/11609/original/spanish-nun-threatened-for-casting-doubt-on-virgin-mary.jpg .

Head coverings are required on woman in many religious sects.

For example within Christianity, Islam and Shinto (like http://pm1.narvii.com/6381/ab5e63c6887aaaec9c75888ab3941669a6360cd0_hq.jpg )

The laws of every organised society form
a complicated pattern of balanced freedoms
and restrictions. Some people think of laws
as the natural enemies of freedom. Anarchists
believe that all systems of government and
laws destroy liberty. Most people believe
that the laws both limit and protect the freedom
of an individual. For example, it forbids people
to hit others. But it also guarantees that people
will be free from being hit.

The major reason for restricting freedom is to
prevent harm to others. To achieve the goal of
equal freedom for everyone, a government may have to
restrict the liberty of certain individuals or
groups to act in certain ways. Society limits
personal freedom in order to maintain order and
keep things running smoothly.

Also, every person must accept certain duties and
responsibilities to maintain and protect society.
Many of these duties limit freedom. For example, a
citizen has a duty to vote, to pay taxes, and to serve
on a jury. The idea of personal freedom has nearly
always carried with it some amount of duty to
society.

Therefore much as I support the right of people being
able to wear whatever clothing they want I do not agree for
a need in our country for women to wear full face veils.

We cannot accept to have in our country women who are
prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life,
and deprived of identity.

The burqa is not a sign of religion. It is a sign of
subservience. To me it is a garment that symbolises
the systematic subjugation of women. The very purpose
of the burqa is to divide the wearer from the rest of
the world. Unacceptable in Australia.

Arguments about freedom of religion and freedom of
expression are obtuse when the majority of those
who don the burqa are forced to do so by either
cultural and familial expectations.

Niqab is little different, a post box slot.

Although to some feminists both are no different, no more confrontational than Natasha Stott-Despoja's Doc Martens. Boots that really earned their keep. Icons.

Natasha was able to talk about her boots just as later on women were given a podium to millions to talk about their Islamic headwear. Let the boots/Muslim headdresses talk.

Gosh how 'Progressive' their ABC has been over the years, adding to, guiding the debate, as it is wont to do,

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4111040.htm

Have to agree with Foxy and add, the burqa, little more than a symbolic chain identifying owned property? As identified more liberally in my former comment/lascivious lewd levity.
Alan B.

«The major reason for restricting freedom is to prevent harm to others.»

So far so good, I agree - but are there any other VALID reasons?

«Also, every person must accept certain duties and responsibilities to maintain and protect society.»

PROVIDED that they freely agreed to belong to that society to begin with.
Otherwise, for those who did not, their only morally-binding obligation is as you stated earlier - to prevent harm to others.

«The burqa is not a sign of religion. It is a sign of subservience.»

By that same logic, so are seat-belts.
How can you say that it's OK to be subservient to one, but not to the other?