The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has declared that he finds the full head-to-toe Islamic dress "confronting". He said that most Australians would agree with him. On this issue, the Secular Party does agree with him, but for no doubt different reasons. Mr Howard would find that the burqa confronts his Christian values. We find that our secular values are confronted.

It is clear that Mr Howard has no idea what secularism is or what secular values are. Commenting on a parliamentary motion that religious references be removed from statutory oaths and pledges and that tax breaks for religious groups scrapped, Mr Howard said: "What the separation of church and state means in this country is that there is no established church. ... It doesn't mean that we abandon our Judeo-Christian heritage, it doesn't mean that we eliminate public ... references." Mr Howard claimed that the proposition was based on a "misunderstanding of the nature of the separation of church and state." But it is Mr Howard that has the misunderstanding.

There is no separation of church and state in Australia, and this was declared by the High Court in 1981. Like all religious believers, Mr Howard holds that his religion is true, and thus universal. While other beliefs may be tolerated, they are assumed necessarily to be inferior. Hence his advocacy of "Judeo-Christian" values. His confusion of secularism with theocracy no doubt also affects his attitude to the burqa.

The burqa is confronting, for secular reasons, as follows. Religious freedom does not entitle one to impose one's beliefs on others. To an unreasonable extent, the burqa does this. Facial recognition and interpretation of facial expressions is a natural part of human interaction. Our brains have evolved substantial capacities in this regard. That a religious belief should impose a requirement for a one-way barrier to such interactions is certainly unnatural, but presumably acceptable if done with the consent, and in the company, of mutual believers.

When this restriction is imposed on non-believers, without their consent, and where normal human interaction is still expected, a boundary has been crossed. The fact that such an expectation may arise due to a presumption of superior religious perceptions is not relevant. The imposition is unjustified, and therefore unjust. Given that such behaviour may contribute to social disharmony, it may also be considered harmful. Violation of the principles of non-harm and justice, puts the burqa in violation of secular norms of morality.

That is why the burqa is confronting. It confronts secular values. The Secular Party urges that in public places, where normal social interaction is expected, that burqas not be worn.

John Perkins
Secular Party of Australia