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.