I refuse to believe the wearing of the burqa is a …growing threat…as this author feels.

A ban on the burqa displays intolerance. If a woman wishes to hide her body completely under a head to toe garment, go for it!
Unless:

The action is a security threat. If so, the wearer should willingly subject herself to a body search if required, and continue the right to wear the covering.

If the wearing of it is forced on the wearer against her free will.

The wearing of the burqa is a right under freedom of religion, and should remain so.
Otherwise….the pressure from the religious intolerant libertarians, extends its claws into other areas such as forcing religious institutions to adopt immoral practices such as gay marriage, against their religious beliefs. (As ONE example)!

What is societally wrong with banning wearing of burquas in public? We already ban people from wearing motorcycle helmets in banks.

And so it should be banned. If you can't see a person's face, that person doesn't exist. However, the best solution is to ban all Muslim immigration. If they want to carry on with their mediaeval practices, Australia and the West are no places for them to be. Just what are they 'escaping' from if they are doing the same thing they have always done in their s**thole countries? They are not escaping anything; they are bringing their vile way of life to us. Immigration, rather than terrorism, is the way they will overcome us - with the help of our treacherous political class.

The burqa is not a religious requirement, it’s a cultural one. Most muslims don’t wear it.
Frankly in these days of security risks and terrorism it should be illegal to cover your face simply for security reasons. There are documented cases where burqas have been worn to disguise identity during robberies.
But apart from legal aspects, the covering of a face is a deterrent to conversation and integration into society. The majority of communication is non verbal and if you can’t see a persons face whilst you are talking to them you cannot communicate effectively and this creates a barrier to uunderstanding and forming friendships etc.

I'm sorry ttbn, but I have to agree with Big Nana and Diver.

If people have a cultural practice and feel comfortable with it? Why worry? It harms nobody!

Anyway, it is only a question of time before this medieval, imposed by slave-owning men disappears into the annals of history. And exampled by young Muslim women who leave the house suitably attired then upon arriving at the train station disappear into the ladies room only to come out minus the burqa and with earrings, makeup etc.

In a couple of generations and assimilation, they'll even be gracing our most popular beaches in completely unremarkable bikinis etc. Just as the Grandkids of our Afghan camel drivers do now!
Alan B.

just off the topic but the same ideologist who protest by running around naked (eg Peta etc) have banned the bikini from the Miss America parade. We live in a crazy mixed up world. The unis have certainly produced the most unthinking dunces we have had for 100 years or so.

Alan,

Your agree with BN who says: “Frankly in these days of security risks and terrorism it should be illegal to cover your face simply for security reasons”, which means you agree with me too.

You woudn't be allowed to go into a bank with your face covered. If you appeared anywhere in public wearing a mask, you would attract police attention. Why should a small minority of people be allowed to do what you and the majority are not allowed to do? We don't want to end up like Britain where Muslims are treated differently from everyone else. Where your average Brit is threatened with legal action if he expresses an adverse opinion of Islam and Muslims.

In “a couple of generations” there will be no “assimilation”. Muslims are not here to assimilate. The ones who are not active in terrorism are here to change us while they are living off our dole.

How many grandkids of Afhgan camel drivers do you know? I would be surprised if there are any left. If there were, they would have had the same time as the rest of us to be Australians, and they didn't come here as fanatics in those days. Most of them were Northern Indians anyway.

Don't we now have laws banning the giving of offence to anyone?

Well I'm offended by the sight of these things on Australian streets, so they must be banned.

The burka, niqab and veil are all offensive to me. They should be to any person that values freedom and rule of law. What they do is send a loud and clear message that a person's values are those of Allah and Mohammad. They tell everyone that the they do not accept Australian culture or Western values. They even tell us that terror, murder, torture, plunder, and enslavement are acceptable, depending on who is doing it (like their dear prophet, for example). Have you ever seen a Muslim condemn the hate and violence in the Quran and hadith?

The burka and other Islamic practices are just the beginning. Give an inch, they take a foot and then a mile. With the apparel come other wonderful things like child marriage, female mutilation, welfare fraud, multiple marriages and always isolation from the Australian mainstream (or of any Western country). And there is the terror and violence that follows Muslims around like a 5pm shadow on a sunny day (like this week in Belgium where a Muslim yelling Allah Akbar killed 3 people, although the press says his motives are 'unknown'). Well, the Quran promises terror, it says that non-Muslims are not good people and tells them to fight us; it says that Muslims are put on earth to kill and be killed. The fact is that Muslims cannot live in peace, in numbers, as equals with non-Muslims and be good Muslims.

I ask: since the burka has been banned in other countries, did any Muslim leave those countries because of the proibition? As far as I know, NO. If the burka, sharia and other practices were really important to them, Muslims would flock to Islamic societies. The burka and et al is just another probing, aggressive step by people that hate us.

I would think that talking about women's apparel would come under the heading of women's business. But yet the loudest and most bellicose objections against Moslem women, and their wearing of a traditional clothing, gets the loudest and plain abusive responses from men. Funny that.

What category of man works women over? The obvious answer to that would be a coward of course.

//Frankly in these days of security risks and terrorism it should be illegal to cover your face simply for security reasons.//

Nah, bugger that. It's winter, and I'd rather have a warm face than a well exposed face. Even if it poses a barrier a to communication, means I can't make friends, means I don't exist (eh?), stops me 'integrating into society' yada yada yada... I love my balaclava. Function before fashion, people.

Sorry, I realise that is offensive to all you members of the fashion police. But I dunno, I've never got the whole fashion thing. Why get so hung up on what people wear?

Obviously people should have to remove face coverings in certain situations, such as entering banks. But when they're just out taking a walk in the public square? And we start decreeing how they must dress themselves any further than public indecency laws? I'm not sure I fancy that idea... sounds a bit Orwellian to me.

When you see the huge support the terrorist mob called Hezbollah gets in Canada I would say that the burqa is the least of our worries. The support by the terrorist and illegal immigration by feminist and Marxist is far more dangerous.

The full face covering is extremely confronting. As animals, the ability to see and recognise what is in front of us is part of survival. We determine the sex, health, race, and probable intent of our counterpart in a millisecond - we are not even conscious of scanning. Our communication is reinforced (or belied) by micro expressions in the face - we cannot control them. They are signals as to the veracity of what is before us and what they are saying - again , a survival mechanism. Covering the face blocks that ability and our attention is automatically drawn to where there might be danger, hence the staring Muslim women endure.

Further than that, I often wonder about the incidence of osteoporosis for these women, given that frequent sun on the skin particularly face and forearms is natures way of providing Vit D.

If you want to call for laws about what people can wear, then fair enough. You just don't get to bleat about 'freedom' and 'free speech' as well. Freedom means nothing if it doesn't mean the right of others to do things that you personally don't like or find offensive.

//They are signals as to the veracity of what is before us and what they are saying - again , a survival mechanism. Covering the face blocks that ability and our attention is automatically drawn to where there might be danger, hence the staring Muslim women endure.//

They seem to get by OK in colder countries with their faces covered.

I reckon it's because in, say, the Canadian winter everybody with any sense walks about with their head wrapped up against the cold. It's the norm, not the exception.

I think the reason people have so much issue with Islamic headgear in Australia is because it is the exception, not the norm. A lot of people just don't like anything that is odd or different or sticks out. We call the these people 'xenophobes', and I really do feel sorry for the poor bastards. But I don't think we should base any laws on their irrational prejudices.

//Further than that, I often wonder about the incidence of osteoporosis for these women, given that frequent sun on the skin particularly face and forearms is natures way of providing Vit D.//

You can get it from diet as well; bear in mind that in high latitudes there's bugger all sunlight for half the year and they don't all have rickets.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they have a lower incidence of skin cancer, something that affects a lot of Australian women (and men). Maybe we should all be wearing burkas in the interests of sun protection. What's the SPF rating on one of those things?

Thanks Tony. I can't find a case in Canada where citizens front court wrapped up in scarves so their faces cannot be seen.

//Thanks Tony.//

Learn to spell, retard. Ain't no 'y' in Toni. Why do people struggle so much with this? It's only four letters for heaven's sake. How hard can it be?

//I can't find a case in Canada where citizens front court wrapped up in scarves so their faces cannot be seen.//

Who said anything about court, He-Who-Joyously-Pummels-Strawmen? In cold climates most public buildings (e.g. courts) have excellent heating and it's quite comfortable inside. So you take off your hat and coat and scarf and so forth once you're inside. The cold protecting headgear is for when you're outside in public, where there is no central heating.

For the record, I don't have a problem with people being required to show their faces in court, because it's a court. Special rules apply. But then, I never said I did, did I? And I think it's pretty clear from the context of my posts that I object to bans on burkas when people are out and about in the public square. But you thought you'd try and shoehorn in that little red herring anyway, didn't you? I'd say 'nice try', but it really wasn't. It was a half-arsed and entirely transparent attempt.

But let's put this silly strawman to bed once and for all, so that the next time one of you parent's-basement-dwelling neckbeards brings it up again I can just link back here:

I think that Muslims should have to remove face-obscuring headwear anywhere that I, as a middle-aged white male, would also be be barred from wearing it. Nobody is going to let me wear my balaclava in a bank, for fairly obvious reasons, and I don't think Muslims should be allowed to wear burkas in banks for the same obvious reasons.

But if I'm not in a bank, or in a court - if I'm out taking an early morning constitutional and it's the middle of winter and freezing cold - I'm allowed to wear my balaclava. There are no laws which empower the police to stop me and say 'Hey, buddy, take off your warm woolly face helmet because it's a security risk'. Personally, I think that's a good thing, because I prefer not to live in a police state and I like a warm face.

And I don't like double standards. It should be one law for everybody. The places I can go with my face covered should be the places that everybody can go with their faces covered. By whatever they like - balaclava, hoodie, scarf, burka, beekeeper's hat - the practical issue here is the face covering, not people's weird fashion choices. The places I can't go with my face covered, nobody else should be able to either - even if that makes their magic sky fairy cranky.

But having arbitrary and prejudicial laws that say 'Alright, Group A, you guys can cover your faces however you like. Wear a novelty tea cosy, wander about in a Spider-Man costume, carry around one of those giant witch-doctor masks, whatever. We really don't care. Go nuts, guys. Group B: sorry, you have to wear what we tell you to wear, because we think you're weird and we don't like you.'?

Those are not good laws.

It might be interesting to hear of the origins of the Burka.
It is a tradition from a small area in Saudi Arabia.
When the austere Wahhabis took control in Saudi Arabia they enforced
it country wide. Everywhere the KSA funds mosques they make it a
requirement.
At present the women in Saudi are making moves to get rid of it.
Getting the right to drive has encouraged them.
They still have to have a guardian with them.
It originated because muslim cannot control themselves when they
see attractive women.
After all the Koran says uncovered women can be taken by any man.
Hence the grooming gangs in the UK and Bill Al's gang here.

//It originated because muslim cannot control themselves when they
see attractive women.
After all the Koran says uncovered women can be taken by any man.//

No, the practice of veiling the face pre-dates Islam.

Hi Toni - thank you for your response. It's the most insulting one I've received in 4 years on this site. Your insults were completely unwarranted, childish and, consequently, invalid. A check reveals you have problems engaging in an adult manner.

Please be advised I am not a "retard" (delightful language.) I am in my 50's, compos mentis, well educated, and have had some triumphs regarding laws protecting the vulnerable in this country. Now describe yourself.

//Hi Toni - thank you for your response. It's the most insulting one I've received in 4 years on this site. Your insults were completely unwarranted, childish and, consequently, invalid.//

Well, the fact that you'd rather devote an entire post detailing how aggrieved you feel about about one throw-away insult in a lengthy post rather than actually addressing any of my arguments tells me a great deal. For one thing, it tells me that there's probably not much sport to be had in this debate, and that I shall quickly tire of it.

Nevertheless, I feel should apologise and explain. Perhaps I was a little over abrupt and rude... it's just that I get terribly frustrated with people misspelling my name. Because I've been over this about a zillion times before. Surely if you've been here for 4 years you'll have seen me correct people in the past?

Anyway, I consider it a basic act of courtesy to spell a chap's name correctly, especially when the correct spelling is right there on the screen in front of you, ready for copy-and-pasting if you struggle with daily sex (sorry, dyslexia) like some of us. I find it somewhat affronting when people spell my name wrong. Might I expect an apology for that act of rudeness?

But anyway, it was wrong of me to belittle your intelligence. It happens so much around here that I guess I didn't think much of it. Moron, halfwit, fool, idiot, retard, clown, child... if I had a dollar for every time I'd seen somebody belittle their opponent's intellect in the heat of a debate, I might be able to turn my heater on this winter.

And I've been called so much worse by some of the trolls around here that I can't really get upset when they belittle my intelligence. It doesn't bother me, so I guess I don't think enough about how it might affect others :(

Got it. You are not responsible for what you write.

//Got it. You are not responsible for what you write.//

Um, no. Of course I'm responsible for what I write. What on Earth are you blathering about?

It's becoming increasingly obvious that you've lost interest in this topic and are now just trying to troll me. I think I'll leave you to it.

Quran 2:282 Allah said women are half wits!

Muhammad said women are deficient of intelligence!
https://muflihun.com/bukhari/6/301

Pull on an Islamic head dress raise your hand and scream "Look at me, look at me, I agree with Muhammad, I am STUPID!"