Dear (poor) Pericles.. sometimes you totally amaze me... I'm tempted to hint at a *thickheadedness* on your part .. but I'll resist.

Here was your point:

**So the example of men using them in the course of a robbery is no more significant than if they had worn balaclavas.
Personally, I see no reason why the existing rules on face-concealment – evidenced by the “please remove your motorcycle helmets” notices in places like Banks – should not be extended to any form of covering. Including balaclavas. This would take religion out of the equation, and leave the choice where it belongs: with the wearer.**

and Here is MY point:

**So the example of men using them in the course of a robbery is no more significant than if they had worn balaclavas.
Personally, I see no reason why the existing rules on face-concealment – evidenced by the “please remove your motorcycle helmets” notices in places like Banks – should not be extended to any form of covering. Including balaclavas. This would take religion out of the equation, and leave the choice where it belongs: with the wearer.**

Do you see it ? I just pasted 'your' opion twice.. as it quite reflects my own.

That IS my point Pericles. "No more significant" than a balaclava ? of COURSE! for crying out loud. No "less" either.

Take religion out of the equation ? errr duh.. YE--esss.. I don't recall saying ANYthing about 'religion and the Burqa' in my last post.

Which part of the following did you not 'get' Pericles?

//Foxy...I believe you are in glaring error by conflating the Burqa with 'religious dress' of a more general kind. You completely gloss over the security aspects.//

I was sure you were a bright bloke Pericles.. please stop demolishing that rather favorable image by suggesting that Politicians don't take such things as segmental/communal/religious voting inclinations into account.

Dear Csteele.... thanx for noting that point re Glenn Beck and my other thread.

It will be most interesting to see how 8-28 pans out. It's coming soon.

I'm sure it will be a memorable day but remember the night before.. 27th Aug will also have a 'huge' event at the Kennedy Centre.. Beck is a bit coy on it but it has something to do with 'big' names in Faith.. not really sure what he is on about there. I think it's just pointing to the faith foundation (of any religious person) and the need to have a faith foundation in the nation.

With Beck being a Mormon, it's been a most interesting journey to see how his own 'theology' has been kind of put aside in favor of 'mainstream evangelicalism' for the purposes of these events.

The Liberal media are totally apoplectic :) I mean.. they are like trapped rats in a walled area into which a hungry cat has been placed.
Running this way and that.. wide bug eyed... overcome with fear and trembling...

Colbert is good on Beck though :)

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006240022 very very funny.

And no-one can "demand" Sharia law. We have a democracy..
Pericles,
I am truly astonished at your faith & optimism despite all that is happening with our pseudo democracy.

You can call me rascist if you like, but I feel the Burqa is an offical part of the muslums dress and should be removed if they wish to live in Australia.

After all, we can't go live in thier country without doing as we are told, why should it be any different here for them.

It is our country and you are welcome so long as you want to become an Australian.

You can put it back on once you exit customs.

BTW, what about the muslum guy who was shot recently in Melbourne. He had a history of crime as long as your arm, yet, he was allowed to stay and re-offend, time and time again. What A joke!

Now, don't get too carried away, Boaz.

>>That IS my point Pericles. "No more significant" than a balaclava ? of COURSE! for crying out loud. No "less" either.<<

If that were indeed the point you were trying to get across, why did you spoil it all by stating...

>>The Burqa is total concealment and is thus a danger to public safety<<

Being consistent, this tells us that you believe a motorcycle helmet is "a danger to public safety", when it is worn while riding a motorcycle. A balaclava is "a danger to public safety" when it is worn while cross-country skiing. A hockey-mask is "a danger to public safety" when worn by the goalie. SCUBA gear is "a danger to public safety" when diving the Barrier Reef. A burqa is "a danger to public safety" when its owner is walking down the road to visit the mother-in-law...

I take leave to doubt that, Boaz. You're picking on Muslims again, aren't you?

And this is purely disingenuous:

>>I don't recall saying ANYthing about 'religion and the Burqa' in my last post.<<

I know of no other religion that wears the burqa. Few, if any, atheists either.

And you have the chutzpah to accuse Foxy of

>>conflating the Burqa with 'religious dress' of a more general kind. You completely gloss over the security aspects<<

And those "security aspects" are?

Da Capo.

Stop kidding yourself, Boaz.

You come across far more credibly when you own up to your implacable antipathy towards Muslims.

Pretending that you are just an average, easygoing, tolerant Joe is far less convincing.

A useful article "Australian burqa ban doomed to failure" by Ahmed Kilani from : http://muslimvillage.com/2010/08/17/australian-burqa-ban-doomed-to-failure/

A point which deserves more attention is the people pushing for such a ban are not people who have a history of concern for women's welfare.