We need to get wise about this bloke. He hangs from the same tree as James McConvill and Andrew Fraser et al., swiping at low hanging fruit for his own publicity purposes.

You're being baited people: wake up to it.

The veil obviously impedes communication based on facial signals. It is obviously the right of a person to cover their face in public, all else being equal. And yes we should all "embrace a more universal and tolerant disposition". Opinions that end with comments like that are advertising puff pieces. Could you imagine anyone ending an opinion piece with a conclusion arguing that we should "rush into the arms of a more particular and intolerant mindset". For God's sake...

And for those of you who are not aware, this is the same guy who promotes torture as a useful means of interrogation. Think about it. You're being played with. This man has the intellectual integrity (the face is just another body part??), capacity for empathy (muffin tops??), grandiosity (all that the sheik and all our leaders need do is attend his philosopy class :) and talent for self-promotion that is a hallmark of these self-serving libertarian dills; that is, sweet fa.

Listen to all the hypocrites who post facelessly and anonymously on an internet forum that face-to-face contact is essential for society. Most of you have ALL your money in bank accounts held by people you've never seen, buy products from growers and manufacturers you've never met, use inventions and technology from people whose face you've never seen.

Many of you form your opinions and views based on what you read in books and newspapers, and what you hear on the radio: all from people you have no face-to-face contact and wouldn't know if you bumped into them on the street.

I assume that this is the last time you'll be writing a letter, making a phone call or posting on the internet then? While we're at it, I assume from now on you'll all leave the lights on in the bedroom too.

Mirko is completely correct in his analysis of the way people react to clothing. The Sheik's comments about women who don't wear the fail are lunatic and expose a deep-seated neurosis. As do the comments of those who are hysterical about women who choose to wear the veil.

How I long for the good old days when the only people who believed women were to blame for rape were judges, police, priests and most of their congregations...oh wait, many still do....

Leigh says: “Faces are a means of recognition and, like it or not, judgement of people on first contact.” Given that posters are invisible to you, Leigh, that may explain your lack of judgement, which your quote suggests is based on superficial judgements.

It doesn’t bother me that women cover their faces or wear mini skirts. However, it must be the woman’s choice and there must be no coercion. The low neck lines are a bit distracting as I spend more time averting my eyes than a heterosexual electrician in a gay bar fixing the disco globe.

Also, before you all use this as an excuse to jump on Muslims, I think you will find that western defence lawyers will use the same provocative dress nonsense as the sheik to in part create doubt about the victim in rape cases. What a cop out.

Leigh, it also follows from your quote that maybe wearing a veil is good thing in that one has to communicate and look into the woman's eyes before making any judgement. Maybe it may help certain people to see more than a pretty face and nice legs and engage with their intellect.

Having said that - it is kind of offensive to suggest a woman must hide her face because the Islamic powers-that-be thinks a person gets some sort of inappropriate message from her face. Most western men I know respect and trust women. We mostly all know and respect the boundaries. Mind you the domestic violence and rape figures are concerning.

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali and other like-minded people seem to be projecting their own lack of respect for women onto us Australian men. The only person responsible in a rape case is the rapist. No excuses. That is my understanding of how Australian men and women particularly those frowned on as left-wing, feminists etc see it.

Anitarian...*wow* :) quite a mouthful there, but well said mate.

Mercurious... one can always tell a 'post modernist/cultural-moral relativist' by their comments about 'its just a matter of opinion'...or the such like.

They are always blind to "Australian Culture" (even though they were born here. Birth does not guarantee awareness, because that depends on the social circles of ones upbringing and education.)

They usually say "this culture is as valid as that"... but in so doing, they avoid consideration of the reality of a prevailing culture based on the history and ethnicity of a country.
You did well in recognizing the diverse ethnic background of Irish,Scottish, English, Welsh in the beginnings of Australia, but they were already bound to a degree by a common culture as 'UK' which in turn led easily to the development of an 'Australian' culture.

KEY POINT in all this is tolerance and respect... (wow.. can't believe I used those words)... but for who ? Aah..THAT is the important point. FOR THE ESTABLISHED culture, thats what !

The guide should be: "Where there is a cultural clash between migrant culture and established culture, the established MUST prevail in all social intercourse"

Examples.

-Introductions. Aussie males will shake hands with Muslim males AND females.

-Language. English to be used in workplaces.

-Greetings.

Maori's who normally rub noses when greeting, will shake hands with Australians in Australia (who, if they respect Maori culture will rub NOSES with them in Kiwiland where it is practiced)

-Workplaces.

Veils will not be worn.(can be worn in the home)

-Emergency Services.

Formal uniform/Safety gear takes precedence over religious requirment for Turban/beard etc. Domestic violence is treated same for all.

-Industrial Work practices.

No time off for prayer except tea breaks and lunch times.

-Council Functions:

Food will be provided mainly according to Australian Culture. (special tables of Halal food are ok)

CONCLUSION "Established prevails, Newby unveils"

Maybe we should be grateful that some religions advertise their members by the way they dress. Otherwise, how could we tell the good people from the bad ones?
We would have to resort to something like say, having them wear a little yellow star or compulsory armband.

How do the Americans deal with their Amish problem anyway? They despise the lifestyles of other citizens, live in enclaves and dress in strange ways too.

Actually, I see nothing sinister about showing humility and modesty and giving simple respect in return.
I'm more affronted by thugs wearing baseball caps

A comment is made from the extreme end of the ideological spectrum. A cavalcade of responses comes from the other end, which appears to have come full circle in terms of intolerance.
As usual, both commentaries are completely wrong and ignore most of the key elements.

Firstly: Foolish to paint women as meat. For the grain of truth in his comments regarding immodestly dressed women leading men into temptation, he has completely ignored the need for men to demonstrate self restraint.

On the other hand it is not as if western women are allowed to wear 'whatever they want' as Bagaric indicates.

When was the last time you saw a bare breasted woman walking through a shopping mall, aside from the occasional discrete breastfeeding?
Breastfeeding aside, are women oppressed if they are told to cover up their chest?

How about this - people are told to remove bicycle helmets when walking into banks. I can only assume that muslim women aren't permitted to wear veils for the same reasons. Is this discrimination?

We're asking women to cover up a part of their bodies. Think about that. Do women feel oppressed by this? Those I've asked have said no. Perhaps we should be asking if the veil is a form of oppression. We say people aren't allowed to disrobe, but can we then say they shouldn't be allowed to cover up? So are we only allowed to play by western rules? If somebody wants to cover their face (outside a bank) why on earth should we stop them?

CONTINUED