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