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.