Nursel has the issue back-the-front, upside-down yet again.

First point. In this case the burqa IS the colonial export. The indigenous peoples of France and other Western societies are on the receiving end of Islamic expansion in much the same way that the Levant/Arabia was invaded by European culture in the 18th-20th centuries. Indeed, we can safely say that very few contempory Westerners relish the thought of conservative Muslim infrastructure morphing their homely suburbia. Therefore, the rant against the burqa is really a concern against Islam itself. It's just that the burqa is so obviously morally wrong that it is an easy target to hit. Taking on Muslim ideology as a whole is more problematic, so better to take it apart piece-by-piece.

Second point. All religions start out as a cult. Indeed, the only real difference between a religion and cult is the number of brainwashed adherents. Islam is a Mohammed cult in the same way that Mormonism is a Joseph Smith cult. Early Christianity was a Jesus cult, and Catholicism has added the cult of Mary.

Therefore, Muslim women are about as free as the Mormon pigeon pair who visit my door-step as missionaries. Not very. Their minds are controlled by a religious cult which is in turn controlled by a male dominated clergy.

Individuals sucked into a cult are not free in any meaningful sense, and the clerical perpetuators of the cult need to be called into question. In this context opposing the burqa/Islam is not 'what-not-to-wear imperialism' but is merely opposing a male dominated religious cult. This is good thing I think.

I think poor Nursel belted his forehead against the wailing wall too often .
I don't care what religeon or culture an exportee is ; although I do often wonder why did they leave their wonder country the land of Allah to come to live with heathens like us .

My attitude to the Burgah is about comfort my comfort ; what are they hiding from or what are they hiding ..semtex ?
How do I know I am not sitting next to BinLaden or some other Jihadi .

The French have my support .

Getting around covered up and furtive is not a requirement of Islam; so don't feel sorry for the idiots who dress as though they were living in some middle-east dung heap hundreds of years ago. Whether or not Muslim women '... can look after themselves'is not the issue.

Islamic garb worn in the West is an insult to the host culture: a sure sign of separation. People wearing masks and voluminous attire are also a potential danger to the rest of us. There's plenty of room for bombs.

Nursel Guzeldeniz is typical of many Muslims coming to the West who think that multiculturalism is a one way street, where the the newcomers don't have to make any changes; it's all down to the host culture to change and be 'tolerant'.

The sooner multiculturalism is knocked in the head the better. Nobody expects immigrants to drop their culture alogether, but they should keep it private, and fit in with the majority in public. If they don't want to do that, they should leave.

Another well-researched and nuanced article from Nursel Guzeldeniz - and which has attracted some entirely preictable responses. It always bemuses me when some people claim to be advocating for women's rights by telling them what they can and can't wear.

I've also noticed that this novel concern for women's rights is very often an acceptable 'veil' for Islamophobia, paradoxically invoked by many of the same people who rail against feminism in other discourses.

And divine_msn, it's not YOUR country. It's OUR country, and many of us support cultural diversity and the rights of Australians to dress how they wish - even if we find it discomfiting at times.

The article is remarkable for what it studiously avoids, which is discussion of conservative Sharia law and mosques in Western countries. If conservative Muslims are few amongst migrant populations in Western countries, why haven't the moderates been able to force the full integration of women into mosques?

Australia is far from being the fiercely secular state that the overwhelming majority of its citizens want it to be. Despite the lack of voter support for government concessions to religions and community anger that authorities turn a blind eye to certain cultural practices that are illegal, change has been introduced by stealth and without community consultation.

It is ridiculous for instance that it is permissible to wear a burqua while in charge of a motor vehicle. Who was the idiot who allowed that one through and where is the accountability to the electorate?

What voters should be getting really angry about is the apparent ease with which certain interests can achieve alternative interpretations of regulations and policy, and surreptitiously at that.

There is no purpose in the majority of the population voting at all if 'democracy' is only about a grand show at election time and for the remainder of the time the government kowtows to its favoured elites. The Rudd government is far better at 'never you mind' than Joh Bjelke-Peterson ever was and the consequences are obvious.

The article is long on individual religious 'rights' and short on community responsibility, community rights and community responsibility. That is to be expected of an advocate but it grates on an electorate that is required to pick up the tab for the collateral damage from weak-kneed government policy that almost invariably seeks to appease multicultural sensitivities.

Nursel
Are you seriously suggesting that all Islamic women have the power to overcome the control of a religion which dictates women's dress code and behaviour? That these women are genuinely free to choose what they wear? In your rush to condemn Islamophobia, you fail to acknowledge a greater evil. The oppressive nature of an Islam controlled by men who subjugate, demean and blame women.