Informative essay. Even in a democracy people don't have an absolute right to practise their religion,there are always the constraints of civilised behavior.The constant accommodation to multiculturalism will fragment our society into competing tribes and weaken the state, we will suffer the same fate as the Romans.

Hypocrisy 101: demanding that you not be discriminated against because of your religion, yet demanding the right to discriminate against others because of your religion.

"God bears witness that the hypocrites are liars! They take their faith for a cloak, and then they turn folks from God’s way: evil is that which they have done!" - Koran 63:1

"The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire" - Koran 4:145

i assume the commenters here are just as outraged at certain christian chemists refusing contraception, and certain christian doctors refusing to direct women to where they can get advice on abortion.

You betcha, bushbasher.

And Christian politicians refusing to allow gay marriage, I'm outraged at those creeps, too.

Mind you, if a troop of pirates were to knock at my door, spreading the good word about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'd invite them in for a jug o' rum.

"The wearing of Islamic headdress is but one challenge [to] western societies."

Honestly this is just silly. Go back to university and do ETHNOCENTRISM 101.

RAmen brother clownfish.. and may you all be touched by His noodly appendage.

A classically disingenuous dog-whistling article from Mr Ariel.

<< Whether it’s against the law to conceal one’s face in a public space is a good question. If it isn’t, it should be. >>

If Ariel had bothered to check, he'd find out it isn't generally. In certain situations, e.g. banks and airports, people may be required by regulation to remove headgear for security or identification purposes.

<< The wearing of Islamic headdress is but one challenge [to?]western societies >>

On the other hand, from the wearer's perspective it is but one way of asserting one's religious fundamentalism. Certainly ridiculous if one doesn't share that perspective, but hardly challenging unless one is Islamophobic.

<< Bus companies argued successfully that it is not unreasonable for passengers holding photo travel passes to identify themselves to the driver or the conductor. >>

Fair enough too - except that wasn't the case with the woman in Greystanes where the driver was clearly incorrect about the law.

<< As luck would have it, the MAC proposed two-light solution never saw light of day. Taxi owners, savvy as they are, feared that customers would boycott Muslim taxis, identifiable by their lights. They also feared that customers would soon boycott taxis altogether and use other means of transportation. >>

No luck involved at all. It was a pragmatic solution to a problem brought about the drivers' efforts to impose their silly religious taboos on others. When the drivers realised they didn't have a justifiable objection to the MAC proposal, they modified their silly bans.

As Ariel says, we can learn from experiences elsewhere. By all means prohibit the wearing of attire that conceals identity where public safety or security demand it, because that's justifiable on reasonable grounds. Indeed, the consequent inconvenience to those who insist on wearing such ridiculous attire could well influence them to abandon it of their own volition.

However, to extend that to a general prohibition on concealing one's face in public would be a "knee jerk reaction", as opposed to Ariel's claim about media attention paid to the Greystanes incident.

'i assume the commenters here are just as outraged at certain christian chemists refusing contraception, and certain christian doctors refusing to direct women to where they can get advice on abortion.'

Just because some have calloused hearts does not mean everyone has to.

Women with veiled faces shouldn't travel around unaccompanied by a male relative - that's Muslim law. Public transport users should be able to travel in safety and if a veiled person gets into your bus, train how do you know if its a woman or a man and if there is a problem how do you identify the person.

If you want to live in Australia why don't you adapt to our customs?

If I am ever involved in a car accident with a veiled driver I will swear black and blue that their vision was impeded.

Veiling muslim women is as indefensible as
- orthodox jewish women shaving their hair on their wedding day and always wearing wigs or hats in public
- The Australian newspaper naming the woman charged with using an abortificant
- doctors failing to refer patients on for abortion
- governments demanding women undergo counselling before an abortion, when the funded counsellors are openly anti-abortio

These actions are all designed to control women's sexuality and ability to participate as equal members in our society

Being incognito seems to be the problem for some people, and the issue of religion seems to be a weak veil (sorry) to the predjudices involved.

Would a person wearing mirror sunglasses and a full grown beard be treated the same, or is it because the "veil" is known to be the trappings of a religion that there is a reaction?

I tend to agree with CJ Morgan that the only time you need reveal yourself is for security or other process of identity purposes.

(There may even be people who for medical reasons would dearly love to cover their features rather than be the object of interest.)

Should we have a "no hiding your identity" law? That'd be so arbitrary we'd struggle to get agreement.

Perhaps we can only hope in a civil society that people who hide their features can eventually feel secure enough that they do not need to and their religion/s similarly feels confidant that people can handle it. We'll only get there if some folks stop hyperventilating about people who dress differently.

Why not just microchip everyone?

Isn't the key question whether or not migrants are prepared to adhere to the basic principles of Australian democracy? We believe in an elected government - not a theocratic or autocratic one. We believe in the rule of law enacted by that elected government, not the laws of any religion. We believe in equality of all before the law - men and women alike. We believe in freedom of religion and association and, despite our restrictive libel laws and silly racial vilification laws, we believe in freedom of speech.

All Victorian schools, religious and secular, private and public are now required to promote these democratic principles as a condition of their registration as a school. They are closely supervised by the Registration and Qualifications Authority.

What people wear is a matter for them. But there can be no legal, moral or philosophical support for anything other than adherence to our democratic principles by all who live here.

Billie writes

'These actions are all designed to control women's sexuality and ability to participate as equal members in our society'

If all women would control their sexuality they would not then murder so many of their unborn. It is simply their lack of control that leads to this horrific situation. Somehow Billie fails to see that taking a little responsibility for oneself would stop you from being in a position where others then have to clean up the mess.

Dear CJ
Do you occasionally walk around in public with your face covered? If not why not?
Regards
Blair

The article raises some valid points but overall looks like an excuse to attack multiculturalism and muslims rather than a genuine attempt to address the issues. Boazy like in it's approach.

I wonder what the impact of the pervasivness of video camera's will be on our society. Councils, governments and businesses are increasingly making use of camera's to monitor peoples activities. Almost all mobile phones and digital camera's have video capture capability and a variety of other compact video recording devices are available. Often their use is quite legitimate and may help to protect people but there is still a level of discomfort with being recorded. Will covering faces become more common as people decide that they don't want to be identifiable on recordings as they go about their business? Will idea's of privacy change?

R0bert

blairbar: << Do you occasionally walk around in public with your face covered? If not why not? >>

No, unless sunnies, beard and Akubra count - however, I occasionally ride a motorcycle in public, wearing a full-face helmet.

Why not? Because I'm neither a fundamentalist Muslim woman nor a Star Trek fan - but I wouldn't begrudge them their right to do so, as long as they're not compromising public security nor doing so to avoid identification.

I hope that makes my position clearer :)

c.j. very well said, twice.

runner:

>> Just because some have calloused hearts does not mean everyone has to.

yes, runner. the overflowing love in your heart is evident in your every post.

If you have a faith, that's your business.
If you come from another country with a different dress code from ours, that's your business.
If your faith imposes rules on you, then that is also your business.
But when in Australia, do as Australians do.
That's our business!

CJ
"If you have a faith, that's your business.
If you come from another country with a different dress code from ours, that's your business.
If your faith imposes rules on you, then that is also your business.
But when in Australia, do as Australians do.
That's our business!"

And which Australians would that be?
The drunken oafs who acted like vigilantes and bashed up anyone who looked like a Lebanese on the streets of Cronulla?
The bikie gangs who war with each other?
The good blokes who go home and bash their wives?
The footballers who sexually assault women?
This is xenophobia of the worst kind.
The great thing about being Australian is that being an Australian is what you choose to be, not some predetermined behaviours based upon an outback past that never existed for most of us, and the jingoistic love-it-or-leave-it Anzac mythology which most of the original diggers would be embarassed by.

Runner writes 'If all women could control their sexuality they would then not murder so many of their unborn'.

On the other hand, if all men could just keep it in their pants unless they want to make a baby, we wouldn't have any unwanted pregnancies either!

More effective education on contraception and more easily available contraceptives would lead to less abortions.
Mad religious men yelling at young people about the fires of hell raining down on them at the mere thought of sex will be as uneffective as it always has been.

It's quite simple - minorities have the freedom to practice their customs and activities. However, when those beliefs clash with the laws/customs of the host culture, the minority must give way.

Dear CJ
"I wouldn't begrudge them their right to do so"
Where did this right come from?
Blair

Benny T

Unless the minority can show they are right; or that the majority have no business to be interfering. Then the laws/customs should change.

And we are all members of minorities. We are equally entitled to contribute to the shaping of the laws and customs.

What makes you think that people who happen to be born here are entitled to privileges in that process?

Dear Blair,

I understand that people have the right to do anything they like that doesn't contravene the law. In general, wearing a tent or a Darth Vader suit doesn't contravene any law of which I'm aware.

By the way, since when did Australia acquire a "dress code"? Is there a compulsory national uniform that I don't know about?

runner: << If all women would control their sexuality they would not then murder so many of their unborn. It is simply their lack of control that leads to this horrific situation. >>

I think runner would make a very good Taliban member.

"I understand that people have the right to do anything they like that doesn't contravene the law."
Dear CJ
I asked where does this right come from?
You have not answered this simple question.
Regards
Blair

CJ,
people have the right to take any action they choose as long as that action is not detrimental to others.If we can't identify whom we are dealing with, we are placed at a disadvantage,to our detriment,that has nothing to do with "dress codes".

Hi Blair.

<< I asked where does this right come from?
You have not answered this simple question. >>

Now you're being disingenuous - as you know, it's not a simple question at all. Indeed, it's one that's vexed political philosophers for ceturies, if not millennia.

I think that being free to wear what one wishes is a 'natural right' that one is born with, and is characteristic of a free society. Such rights (or liberties, if you will) should only be curtailed by the State if it can be shown that the exercise of them endangers other people in some way, or restricts the exercise of their own rights.

Nobody here has demonstrated that a woman wearing a burqua is a danger to anybody - rather, we've had what is mostly a litany of paranoid and/or intolerant comments that impute negative motives or exaggerated offence at what is, after all, simply a choice made by a very small minority as to what kind of clothing they wish to wear.

I'm perfectly entitled to wear a Darth Vader costume or a gorilla suit in public, but a bank would be just as entitled to refuse me entry or to open an account for me if I was to refuse to identify myself. Ditto with air travel etc.

mac: << people have the right to take any action they choose as long as that action is not detrimental to others.If we can't identify whom we are dealing with, we are placed at a disadvantage,to our detriment >>

That's just not true. Every day we deal with people we can't identify - from telesales drones to anonymous commenters on Internet forums. As far as I'm aware, I'm only required by law to identify myself to a police officer - although I note that I'm the only person participating in this discussion under my real name.

What have you all got to hide?

CJ,
False analogy,
I require people on the phone to identify themselves,if they don't I don't deal with them, The difference is,a woman wearing a burqa cannot be identified(because basically, she has no public persona) where it is essential and the rest of society is expected to accommodate.You're not forced to deal with me or anyone else here,that's the difference.What's in a name anyway? I haven't noticed any of your personal details posted here. Be careful of ad hominem arguments and assuming the high moral ground without any justification.

yours sarkily,

Harry J Baggerdagger.

Dear CJ
I have never been accused of being "playfully insincere" before..a first.
You state that "Such rights (or liberties, if you will) should only be curtailed by the State if it can be shown that the exercise of them endangers other people in some way, or restricts the exercise of their own rights'. But the State curtails many individual liberties eg public displays of obscene pictures,public nudity by adults, uttering of obscene language in public etc. None of these acts endanger people in any way yet the State prohibits them. Why? Because enough people find such public acts offensive.
If enough people in Australia find hiding one's face under a burqa or niqab offensive, then as the activities mentioned above are prohibited then so should wearing a burqa or niqab in public.
"I note that I'm the only person participating in this discussion under my real name."
My name is Blair Bartholomew and I use name blairbar. I know your surname is Morgan but that is all.
Regards
Blair

Well said Blairbar. I do find that anyone wearing a full body and face veil offensive.
I wonder if the woman behind this sheild is forced by male relatives or her religion to cover her 'femaleness' so she doesn't whip all surrounding males into a sexual frenzy at the sight of her.

I find this demeaning to both the females and the males in our society.

If the woman does choose to wear this veil of her own free will (or maybe has never known outside life without one)then I feel sorry for her.
She may never make contact properly with anyone outside her family and church friends. The eyes and face can show so many more emotions than can be detected in a voice.
The Burqua should not be allowed in Australia.

Hi Blair,

That wasn't quite the usage of "disingenuous" I'd intended. I don't get the impression you're being playful - indeed, if you're not being insincere then the kindest interpretation of your posts is that you are being obtuse. We've been here before, as I recall.

However, notwithstanding your rather totalitarian logic, do you really think that a majority of voters in this country would support a government attempt to ban generally the wearing of any piece of clothing in public? I think that most electors in Australia are ultimately reasonable people who would support the general notion that facial covering should be removed for identification or security purposes under particular circumstances where it can be justified, but extending that to a general proscription is unprecedented in this country.

Besides which, I'm not aware of any situation in Australia where a crime has been committed by someone who avoided detection by wearing a burqa or niqaab. Do illuminate me if I'm wrong.

mac: << a woman wearing a burqa cannot be identified(because basically, she has no public persona) where it is essential and the rest of society is expected to accommodate.You're not forced to deal with me or anyone else here,that's the difference >>

I think that you'll find that burqas are already effectively banned where identification is essential - and I'm not aware that one is required to present identification to catch a suburban bus. When exactly are you "forced to deal with" women wearing burqas? If you don't approve of them, avoid contact and look the other way. You have as much right to be a bigot as they have to wear what they like.

Those of you who want to further surrender your rights to privacy - which is effectively what you're arguing - should take a deep breath and think about the implications of calling for a law that dictates that a small minority of women should be banned from wearing an item of clothing, for no effective reason beyond intolerance.

Where does the right come from?

There are a number of different accounts of rights, including some assertions, mainly by utilitarians, that the concept makes no sense. Since rights talk is often used to try and override concerns about the balance of good and evil consequences, that is not surprising.

A version that is compatible with consequentialism, is that natural rights are specifications of the principle of liberty. Human rights are the requirements for a person to live a life fit for humans. What is to be included in human rights on that view is, not surprisingly, disputed. The disputes, though, are about something important.

The right to wear a burqa is a straightforward consequence of the principle of liberty. Where that principle is overridden (in order to prevent harm, or where infants or others are incapable of rational choice and must be prevented from self-harm for example) there will be no right to keep one on.

It would be harder to make a case for there being a human right (as defined above) to wear one. Perhaps it could be argued that a life in which you are forced to live contrary to your most fundamental religious beliefs is subhuman, or intolerable. There would still be a leap to defending the burqa.

One should not be gratuitously offensive. I can't see that wearing a burqa is offensive in itself; but if even if it were, it is not gratuitous. Perhaps it depends on the reason for which it is worn.

A distinction needs to be made between what is offensive and what offends some people. People find many things offensive, where they should not. Majorities have nothing to do with it.

What do I have to hide? My phone number and my address. The last time I authorised a political pamphlet, my family found unpleasant anonymous notes in the letter box and had to field abusive phone calls.

Australia has dress standards.

Nudists can't use public transport unless they cover up.

In many instances Australians have to show their face for identification as they enter most stores, banks etc

I heard a Jew saying that Palestinians leave bombs on buses but it is OK for a woman to be veiled as an expression of her religion, I asked how do we know the veiled person is a woman and why don't we fear a veiled woman leaving bombs on buses. After all the draconian loss of civic freedoms has been due to Islamic terrorism and this is an extreme mode of dress that acts to separate and isolate the wearer from society.

And yes I wonder whether the woman has chosen this form of dress or whether it has been imposed to isolate her from society.

Humans glean a lot communication through facial expression and when you can't see the face you are talking to you are uncomfortable, see lack of visual contact as shifty behaviour or lack of respect etc and have to rely more on he spoken word.

CJ,

You're still using ad hominem arguments.

CJ:"extending that to a general proscription is unprecedented in this country."
Right but the wearing of burqas and niqabs in this country is only recent hence the current discussion. Regulations concerning the public wearing "appropriate" clothing have a long history in this country particularly swimwear and have changed over time as a result of chnging public attitudes. http://www.api-network.com/main/index.php?apply=scholars&webpage=default&flexedit=&flex_password=&menu_label=&menuID=homely&menubox=&scholar=220
Ozbib "People find many things offensive, where they should not. Majorities have nothing to do with it."
In a democracy majorities have a lot to do with it. Some people find certain actions offensive, others find the same actions inoffensive. There is no unique arbiter. In a democracy the majority decide.

blairbar, there is a hell of a lot more to democracy and human rights than "the majority decide". if you are not aware of the potential dangers and the actual history of tyranny by the "majority", then i suggest you read a little wider.

Quite so, bushbasher (and ozbib).

Funny, the notion of J.S. Mill's 'tyranny of the majority' also occurred to me in this context too.

Blair, I agree with bushbasher's suggestion that you do some reading on the subject of rights vis a vis the democratic State. Might I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill as an accessible place to start?

Dear Ozbib and CJ
No need to condescendingly lecture me or anybody else on the dangers of the "tyranny of the majority". But could you please explain then who ultimately decides what should and shouldn't be worn, what should and shouldn't be seen etc?
Our democratic institutions eg legal system, freedom of the press, freedom of religion etc, did not evolve out of the ether; they were the results of decisions made and/or supported by parliamentary majorities over time.
The current debate on establishing a national Charter of Rights is deeply concerned with the formal establishment of rights. Proponents (and I suspect that includes Ozbib and CJ) do not trust the democratic parliamentary system and would prefer the knowledgeable few to decide and administer an appropriate Charter of Rights.
Perhaps you can give an example of the tyranny of the majority in modern democratic states. Or is it simply you both don't like some of the laws enacted by democratic governments in Australia and elsewhere?

blairbar, if you don't want condescending lectures, then try not to present truisms as solutions to subtle questions on conflicting rights.

>>Perhaps you can give an example of the tyranny of the majority in modern democratic states.

why the word "modern"? if you're arguing principle then what does it matter?

>>Or is it simply you both don't like some of the laws enacted by democratic governments in Australia and elsewhere?

"simply don't like". are you planning to beg the question?

in any case, how about laws against interrracial marriage? or is 1967 not modern enough, and virginia not democratic enough?

Well, I'd much rather live under Tyranny of the majority than the tyranny of a self appionted smug condescinding minority, who assume they have some claim to a moral high ground.

These thought police are the very worst of our modern society, & they usually claim some form of superior ethics, obvious only to them.

Hi Blair,

May I remind you that it was you who raised the very interesting question of the nature of rights in relation to this issue? If you're going to raise such profound questions, don't be surprised if you get serious responses and references to literature.

<< who ultimately decides what should and shouldn't be worn, what should and shouldn't be seen etc >>

Ideally, the person who's doing the wearing or displaying. The State shouldn't come into it unless there is demonstrable harm being done.

<< Perhaps you can give an example of the tyranny of the majority in modern democratic states. >>

I can think of a very good example from modernity where a very civilised democracy overwhelmingly elected a government that subsequently exterminated a large proportion of several minority groups within its own population.

Read the link, Hasbeen - you might learn something. In fact, I think you'd probably agree with much of what J.S. Mill had to say.

Perhaps those of you defending the right to wear veils or burqas might care to consult some British or Australian government travel advice for Westerners travelling to Muslim countries?

"women travelling in Muslim countries should dress conservatively as a mark of respect for the host country's religion, customs and beliefs."

"you should take care to be sensitive to local dress standards. In some Islamic countries you must wear clothing that covers your full body and a scarf over your hair. If you don't you could be harassed or even arrested. T-shirts can be offensive to people in countries with more modest dress codes"

Isn't respect a two-way street? In which case, is it too much to ask that Muslims in Australia respect this country's customs and beliefs, that requiring (and let's not indulge in PC waffle about it being a choice or "statement": hijab is a requirement imposed by religious authority) women to hide their face or even dress as a walking tent in public is considered offensive by most Australians?

I'm with CJ on this.

Clownfish I would hope that Australia would not aspire to those same restrictions you outlined above. Personally I wish to raise the standards of democracy not lower them to match those cultures that might be classed as un-evolved or in transition.

The hijab and burkha are not what most would choose, and I hate what this clothing represents but in Australia I have the right to voice my concerns. Equally, the idea of dictatorial big brother governments legislating what we should wear is just as distasteful.

Rather depend on exposure, integration, education and multi-culturalism to eventually soften the edges of more patriarchial cultures.

CJ, I think most Australians understand that we are bound together by a MAJORITY set of beliefs and values. What you propose is a slippery slope to tribalism. Not to mention your suggestion that they prove their beliefs are "right" is contradictory - if all cultures and beliefs are equal, then who is to define what is right? They will always be right in their own eyes.

Therefore, you are saying that they must prove themselves right by majority standards, and thus implicitly admitting that there is a majority ideal that sets the benchmark they must live up to.

And no, it is not our duty to give way to minority beliefs. They come here and expect us to change? Would you support Australians going overseas and telling the locals to change to suit us? No, covering up your face is not acceptable in this society, and it is not a valid religious expression. We don't allow people to wear balaclavas on the street, do we?

1.Perhaps you can give an example of the tyranny of the majority in modern democratic states.
why the word "modern"? if you're arguing principle then what does it matter?
All my comments on this blog are related to the wearing of the burqa/niqab in Australia in 2009. I was not arguing principles; why bother?

2.Or is it simply you both don't like some of the laws enacted by democratic governments in Australia and elsewhere?
."simply don't like". are you planning to beg the question?
Why do you want to know that? You can read read my comments.

3."in any case, how about laws against interrracial marriage? or is 1967 not modern enough, and Virginia not democratic enough?"
You are talking about the State of Virginia in 1967. The blacks after years of political exclusion, educational discrimination, violence etc saw some of the laws eg poll tax overturned and education facilities opened to all.
It was hardly an example of a modern democracy.
4."I can think of a very good example from modernity where a very civilised democracy overwhelmingly elected a government that subsequently exterminated a large proportion of several minority groups within its own population"
Please give the example CJ.

blairbar, if that's not begging the question i don't know what is. you're simply on the road to defining "modern democracy" to exclude any such example. you think current "democratic" states are paragons of egalitarianism?

and, it is ridiculous to suggest that the disenfranchisement of american blacks (which still exists in a very real manner) had anything to do with the existence of such horrid laws. the fact of the matter is, the majority of virginians in 1967 supported a ban on interracial marriage. and the minority of blacks, and their non-black lovers had to tolerate a clear and abhorrent tyranny of the majority. it was only overturned by that horribly undemocratic institution, the supreme court, and then about 50 years too late.

Blair, I think you're being just a tad insincere again. Tell you what, I'll answer your latest disingenuous questions when you can show that you understand my previous answers - you didn't read that last link, did you? Here's a hint: most historians regard the "modern" era as extending from the first half of the 17th century to the latter part of the 20th.

Clownfish, we're not talking about tourists, and Australia doesn't have a dress code beyond having to cover your genitalia in public, last I heard. Most people I know like to think of Australia as a "free" country, as opposed to those kinds of place that dictate what kinds of clothes women may wear.

benny tea - we were talking about "rights", as opposed to anybody's beliefs being "right".

<< We don't allow people to wear balaclavas on the street, do we? >>

We do, actually. People do it frequently in winter where I live. They even ride motorcycles on public roads while wearing full-face helmets.

CJ, pelican, it's not so much the clothes in themselves, as the *intent* behind the clothing. Or are you going to deny that wearing the more extreme forms of hijab - such as a burqa - is not sending a message?

Perhaps I'm over-generalising, but I would suggest that wearing a burqa, for instance, signals one of two things: that the woman is forbidden to show any part of herself in public, or that she wishes to make a statement of radical Islamism. Both are offensive to contemporary Australian customs and beliefs; the latter, given the current political climate, is particularly alarming to most Australians - non-Muslim and Muslim alike.

I certainly wouldn't like to be put in a situation where certain forms of clothing are actively banned, but I do think that Australia needs to emphatically assert that the oppression of women and radical/militant religious fanaticism are frankly offensive to Australian culture.

Of course, the issue at hand is Islamic extremism - and I would assert that being required by religious authority to cover one's face or body in public is extremist in contemporary Australia - but the above should - and indeed did - apply to all religions.

This is not a modern attitude either - consider this turn-of-the-century Australian folk song: "Well, strike me pink, but I'd rather drink with a bloke sent down for arson, than a rantin', ravin', screechin', preachin', cranky blanky parson".

To be blunt: Australians don't like religious dingbats, whether they're Islamic, Christian or Kallathumpian.

P.S.
The only religious dress *I* don't find offensive is a pirate costume.

I waded through to The Telegraph website and saw a video of Ms Niqab wearer. She describes herself as a Maltese Australian who converted to Islam. She is a try hard. She is as welcome to her dress code as fit large men are welcome to wear balaclavas covering their faces with holes for eyes and mouth through a railway station or shopping mall.

Dear Bushbasher
Who sanctioned that "horribly undemocratic institution, the supreme court"? The man in the moon? The founders of the American constitutional government certainly recognized the importance of institutions such as the Supreme Court in sustaining democracy.
Nowhere have I stated that democracy simply equates to majority rule. I have tried to explain that for democracy to work effectively and to be "sustainable" a lot of other institutions are necessary eg universal suffrage, rule of law, freedom of the press,independent legal system etc. These are present in Australia; hence it is right for Australian electors to decide on the wearing of the burqa and niqab.
"you think current "democratic" states are paragons of egalitarianism?
Where did I suggest that?
After the Civil War the State of Virginia consisted of equal numbers of enfranchised blacks and whites. An organized campaign of terror (perhaps you have heard of the Klu Klux Klan) resulted in a mass exodus of blacks from Virginia and the disenfranchisement and segregation of those who remained.Hardly the conditions for a modern democracy to evolve. Who knows what inter- racial marriage laws might have existed if democracy had prevailed.
Dear CJ
I have studied Modern History.When I studied it the general view, for what it is worth, was that it covered the period from just before the French Revolution to the present day. As a retired economist I am certainly familiar with the writings of John Stuart Mill both in political economy and ethics.
So CJ what "civilised democracy" are you talking about? "I can think of a very good example from modernity where a very civilised democracy overwhelmingly elected a government that subsequently exterminated a large proportion of several minority groups within its own population."?

sigh!

blairbar, what you wrote is "In a democracy the majority decide." you seem to have no conception that the statement could be vacuously true or, given your latest ramblings, the statement is often false. in either case, the statement contributes nothing to your burqa fetish. nor does it diminish the blindingly obvious reality of tyranny of the majority. it exists blairbar, and sophistic attempts to define it away just make you look silly.

god knows what you really mean, if anything. your arguments are a moveable feast, and i haven't the time or energy to move with them. maybe ozbib or cj morgan are happy to continue to play these games.

Indeed, bushbasher.

Blair, if you've studied modern history and are familar wil J.S. Mill et al, you know exactly what I'm talking about. With that background, you'd have to be very aware of the dangers of legislating intolerance. Your position is indefensible from an ethical point of view - unless you are of a particularly authoritarian, Statist persuasion.

Like bushbasher, I find your games tiresome and an obvious effort to deflect attention from your bigotry.

Clownfish: << To be blunt: Australians don't like religious dingbats, whether they're Islamic, Christian or Kallathumpian. >>

You're probably quite correct in general terms, but that's the whole point of tolerance - you don't have to like your godbothering neighbours, but they still have every right to believe whatever nonsense they like and dress accordingly (so long as their genitals are covered).

Has there ever been a serious crime committed in Australia by someone wearing a burqa or niqaab?

Dear Blair

I think CJ is talking about Nazi Germany, for what it's worth.. that's my guess anyway

CJ, we're not talking about crime, we're talking about what is offensive and unacceptable in this country. I have no issue with the headscarf, but I do have issue with the full face covering.

Your example of motorcycle helmets is disingenuous. They are not interacting with other members of the public while wearing them (as in, shopping at a supermarket or patronising a restaurant), they are wearing head protection as required by law to operate a motorcycle.

You seem to believe in the concept of limitless rights. It doesn't work that way. Their rights end when they clash with our customs, values and indeed, laws. Do you expect us to change according to a minority opinion? Why not allow female genital mutilation, then? If we are bound to respect minorities exercising their "rights", then why not let the minority that espouses it do what they want?

I wonder whether veiled women chose their mode of dress or have it imposed upon them by their community. I have seen 3 year old girls at Maccas having their headwear gently but firmly reapplied. I have heard stories of 6 years getting their hair shaved to shame them into covering their hair. Presumably these girls aren't going to be directed to restricted career choices.

"an obvious effort to deflect attention from your bigotry."
Well CJ perhaps you could give me and the other bored readers of this blog one example of my bigotry.
"A bigot is a person who is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his or her own religion, political party, organization, belief, or opinion, especially one who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Clownfish
I know exactly what you mean by the intent behind the clothing. Personally I think all religious garb is nonsense and the product of brainwashing but I don't think you will see these same governments talking about banning nun's habits or Brethren head scarves.

Laws banning religious clothing will only encourage radicalisation in an already disenfranchised group. More fodder for hungry Imams with a particular agenda. These Imams are getting old and hopefully once they die out the more moderate younger generations will replace them.

Ensuing generations may choose not to wear the garb and laws dictating clothing choices is facism.

If you really must have a new law on this, why not make the act of forcing someone to wear a certain item of clothing against their wishes - illegal.

As long as those same hijab or bhurka wearers respect my right not to wear similar (and not be spat on while walking down the street) and vice versa I don't see how moving towards this sort of legislation will be helpful in any way.

benny tea: << You seem to believe in the concept of limitless rights. It doesn't work that way. Their rights end when they clash with our customs, values and indeed, laws >>

No, benny - you don't seem to understand the notion of rights. In the absence of demoinstrable harm, people generally have the right to do and wear what they like in this country, as long as it doesn't contravene the law. You want to create a law to restrict the rights of a tiny minority, simply because you choose to be "offended" by them wearing a garment which is in itself harmless. I disagree strongly - "offence" is an insufficient justification to curtail someone else's existing rights, in my book.

On the other hand, a supermarket would be justified in disallowing people wearing burqas into their premises because of the risk of shoplifting. I would have thought that wearing a burqa in a restaurant would create enough difficulty for its wearer in eating to provide a strong disincentive.

Blair, I think you need to invest in a decent dictionary. I think that wanting the State to ban a tiny minority of women from wearing a garment that they believe is part of their religion, simply because it offends you for some reason, is a pretty good example of bigotry in action, even according to the Wikipedia definition.

Besides which, I seem to recall that you're a practising Christian of some kind, aren't you? If that's the case, don't you think you should mention it in relation to the nature of your objections - or are you going to claim dishonestly that it's irrelevant?

Of course, if my memory is wrong and you're not a Christian godbotherer, please accept my apology.

Dear CJ
I am not a practising Christian and haven't been for many years. Perhaps you are confusing me with other contributors whom you have regularly abused in the past.
As for my wanting the burqa and niqab to be banned, yes but provided a majority of the electorate agree with me. Hardly the actions of a bigot.
" Of course, if my memory is wrong and you're not a Christian godbotherer,.." Who is the bigot now?

CJ, pelican, you're right: I don't think it's practical or desirable to start passing laws about what citizens can or can't wear.

I'd be interested to see how the French experience has worked out - I do believe that they banned the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols or garb in government institutions such as schools or the public service. But then, France has a very strong (and admirable) tradition of official secularism.

I agree that banning aggressively religious symbols would probably only give oxygen to the whackjobs, be they Christian or Muslim extremists.

Sigh ... probably the best recourse with these idiots is not to give them the attention they crave.

But then, we clearly do not tolerate religious practices that we deem abusive or restrictive of the individual's rights, such as infibulation, or (theoretically at least) the exclusionist practices of the Brethren; at what point do we rule a line on forcing people to wear restrictive clothing?

My other concern is the thin edge of the wedge; how far is it from tolerating things that are so alien to Australian culture as the burqa, to the Archbishop of Canterbury accommodating the adoption of "aspects of" Sharia Law?

Interesting points, Clownfish. I don't think we should make any legislative changes to accommodate religious practices - although I don't think infibulation or any other form of FGM are religious, strictly speaking. At any rate, they're illegal for good reason.

If the various religions want to recognise each other's rules and regulations, that's fine by me - but I'm not in favour of Sharia law in secular society. If Muslims want to submit themselves to Sharia voluntarily then I don't have any problem with it, so long as it remains subordinate to the law of the land.

Blair, I'm no bigot. I think you're entitled to say, do and wear whatever you like within the law, as indeed are religious fundies. You're the one who wants to impose your values on others by changing the law to discriminate against them.

I've already apologised for mistakenly thinking you're some kind of godbotherer - you seem remarkably quick to take offence, I must say (and just a tad dishonest for excising the apology from your quotation of me).

So if your intolerance doesn't emanate from a competing religious ideology, on what basis do you justify it? Maybe you just get offended easily by those who don't share your rather narrow worldview.

It's not just me who is offended, CJ. The notion of covering one's face in public is not what we, as a society, believe in. Whether you want to admit it or not, there appears to be a majority consensus on this.

And do you honestly believe that there is no demonstrable harm in the wearing of the burqa? Quite apart from the fact that women are most likely coerced into wearing them (every woman on TV who claims it is her right invariably has a Muslim male or two standing behind her), it is socially harmful. It breeds self-exclusion, it discourages integration, it demonstrates that the wearer has made a choice - if it is that - to place "religious" (I don't believe it's actually called for in their religion) dictates above all else - including having regard for the values of the society in which they have chosen to live

"Interesting points, Clownfish. I don't think we should make any legislative changes to accommodate religious practices - although I don't think infibulation or any other form of FGM are religious, strictly speaking. At any rate, they're illegal for good reason."

Dear CJ - advocates of FGM in the great majority of cases will claim that the procedure is a 'religious obligation' - usually Islamic though there is little in the Koran to support the practice in any of its forms. Likewise there is little to support the practice of wearing a tent with slits or narrow rectangle of gauze to allow (limited) vision. Both are cruel and repressive remnants of old tribal 'culture' where females were (and still are by some of these stone-agers) considered property of their fathers or husbands rather than any "statement of belief".

Should Australia, with its legal and value system which upholds individual rights and freedoms support such minority customs which obviously occlude these principles? We are talking about a group of Australians whose reality is the freedom to do anything and everything their current dominant male 'minder' says - down to intimate levels like decisions about their own health. Don't believe me? Go work in Public Health...

Can any poster with KNOWLEDGE of the law tell me if I am in the firing line for "discrimination" if in my business, I refuse to serve a burqa clad customer who refuses to uncover her face in order to communicate with me? I feel offended when confronted with such a person on my premises but what are MY rights?

BTW - there always has been legal imposition on clothing. That which exposes genital area of either sex and female breasts in public is a no-no and apart from requirement to remove motorbike helmets and similar 'masks' in many places, I believe wearing garments that evoke fear or offence may result in charges. Eg - a KKK outfit to attend an aboriginal dance performance.....

Would appreciate an informed response from anyone with legal experience in the field

Some news items floating around today about a french muslim convert being banned from wearing a Burqini in a public pool in France. The cited reason is health concerns based on laws against swimming while clothed. Given that the outfit is designed as swimwear I get the impression that the health issues bit is an excuse.

One brief article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8197917.stm

The sample photo's I've seen have the wearers face and hands fully exposed (not sure about the feet).

Is that the type of restriction those who want controls on what people wear are seeking? Is there a fundamental right to be able to see a womans legs when she swims (maybe some cleavage as well)?

R0bert

A quote:

"We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind netting; cut off from any social life, deprived of any identity. This is not the idea the French republic has of a woman's dignity. The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of servitude,” Sarkozy said today in a speech to both houses of parliament at the Versailles Palace on the outskirts of Paris. Calling it a violation of women’s “dignity and freedom,” Sarkozy said the burqa “will not be welcome on French soil.”

As for the burqini, it is clearly religious garb in a public institution, which I believe the French have outlawed. Don't believe me? Then ask, what is her motivation for wearing such an outfit? Performance enhancing? Protection from the sun? In any case the restrictions are, no loose-fitting clothing allowed while swimming. This includes surfer shorts, and presumably T-shirts. To claim exception to this on religious grounds seems like yet another attempt to push the boundaries of tolerance.

Interesting point, R0bert - the 'health issues' are obviously bogus.

Benny tea - you've got it arse up. This appears to be a blatant example of intolerance, positively encouraged by Sarkozy.

How on earth is anybody hurt by a woman swimming in a 'burqini'?

“Benny tea - you've got it arse up. This appears to be a blatant example of intolerance, positively encouraged by Sarkozy.” --our resident proctologist thinks he’s diagnosed the malady!

Actually , if your pool is anything like mine, you will find it has quite a few stipulations regarding dress etiquette -–from footwear to torso-wear.

Take a look at the regulations notice next visit -–you might get a big surprise.