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?