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.