The difference broadly seems to come down
to one of "freedom to" versus "freedom from."

Some people are defending a woman's right to dress as
she chooses, especially when it comes to expressing
her religious belief. Others are arguing for the
freedom from coercion by those who would impose a
symbol of second-class status. These are the people
who do not believe in accommodating fundamentalists who would
impose a sumbol of subservience on women.

As one reader asked in another article on the web -
"Are the niqab and the burqa counter-productive to a
harmonious and inclusive society?" " If we as citizens are
rightly expected to show tolerance, where is the
reciprocal tolerance on display with those practicing
such extreme interpretations of Islam that they are
offended by the mere act of someone being able to
look at their face, surely the most natural way to engage
with another human being?"

"How does discouraging people from engaging in such communication
make us a more tolerant society? Why can't we expect some
sort of give and take on both sides, such as is provided by the
wearing of a hijab?"

"People have the right to do a lot of things, but when accepting
that right means that the existing social compact and
societal norms are compromised then I think it is legitimate
to question whether we are getting the balance right."

There are plenty of examples where religious freedoms are not
acceptable and not practised in Western Societies. Why would
someone come to this country and then try to recreate the
living enivronment they have just left

It is ludicrous that as well as the obligatory prayer rooms that private and public employers are supposed to provide, there will also have to be private discrete rooms at all entrances to confidential or other security areas with a women staff member always available, in order to ensure that there is no 'discrimination' against any Muslim veil wearer who might want to enter.

Yet Me Me (Moi Moi) and Poirot swear that very few Muslims would require the services. In that case precisely who is responsible for all of the ruckus? Why, what secondary agenda are they about?

Save the money and give preference in immigration to the migrants from the millions available who don't have to import offensive rituals and politics. Why follow the multicult PC path down trails that culminated in the Rotherham scandal, or civil unrest?

The construction industry could do with those trained block layers from Italy we once used to get, builders from Northern Europe who can build the dry basements our own builders have for decades found impossible (they all leak!) and some decent roofing tradies and sparkies while they are at it.

If political parties must buy the votes of migrants, at least source desirable skills and cultural traditions from the millions of available migrants. It is a buyers' market, so what is going wrong in immigration policy and in that federal department that is supposed to be putting Australia's needs uppermost?

OTB, I don't tend tend to read more than one of your posts at any one time, because I can only handle the annoyance in small doses...

I agree with you in principle Foxy, as I too feel uncomfortable with the extreme burqa or nikab dress.
However, I strongly support their right to wear them if they choose, given that there are no laws against them thus far.

If there are any 'security' concerns in places where faces must not be obscured, then they must be prepared to unveil of course, here in Australia. I assume that if they chose to emigrate here, then they would be willing to do this.

Abbott, and his other old male conservative Christian friends, only thinly disguises his Islamaphobia, which is not admirable in a PM running a secular country like Australia.
He continues to embarrass me as an Australian.

People like JayB, who seem to live on fear and bigotry, must have great joy in having Abbott at the helm.

Jay B,
What trouble are we in? In the 1920's Jewish led bolsheviks were running amok in Germany killing people left right and centre, not to mention what they were up to in the Soviet republics, anything Australia's Muslims have done pales into insignificance compared to the crimes committed by Bolshevik Jews in Europe in the 20th century.
You're even worse than the so called "bleeding hearts".

Suseonline,

You never bother to read prior posts because you are always falling over your own feet to deliver a sarcastic remark to make your own day.

How in hell your obsessions - the US, guns as current examples - always get a mention some way, some how, God only knows. Whoops, a despicable 'white' man and God, so GO for it Suseonline, you know you want to let loose on those and get a top-up adrenaline shot for the day. LOL

A good walk in the park will deliver you the same 'shot' and it is good for you, with no nasty side effects.

JOM: compared to the crimes committed by Bolshevik Jews in Europe.

Yes, yes, JOM we all know you have Jewephobia. That's Racist, you know.

Have I got Islamaphobia. maybe I have but with good cause. We only have too look what's happening in Europe, the UK, in fact anywhere where there are moslems. These countries never had this problem until Islam arrived on the scene. Australia never had this problem until the Islam religion arrived in numbers. Once these problems were restricted to the Middle East now they have been exported all over the World. Good people are dying because of a religious disease no better than Ebola.

Wakey! Wakey!