Now here is a stupid arguement
Article here

So MP Fred Nile wants to ban (female) topless bathing, this is his argument.

""Our beaches should be a place where no one is offended, whether it's their religious or cultural views," he said.

"If they've come from a Middle Eastern or Asian country where women never go topless - in fact they usually wear a lot of clothing - I think it's important to respect all the different cultures that make up Australia."

The practice was at risk of raising the ire of Muslim men in particular, Mr Nile said.

"I don't want to have any provocations or disturbances on our public beaches," he said"

This is really stupid. Firstly because a ban on female topless bathing offends me, because it's sexist and prudish. If we allow men to go topless, then women should be allowed. It is only fair. Further more, banning nudity is just prudish. There is no harm to society for people being naked in some places, like the beach, in fact liberal attitudes to nudity are helpful for children (look here for a summary).
Basically the only reason to ban public nudity is that some conservative people are uncomfortable with it. Now without any evidence for a negative effect, should we ban a behaviour because some are uncomfortable with it? I think that we need evidence, without it it comes down to who can shout loudest out of me and Niles (at least until one of us gets shot, probably me).
So this is a stupid argument: we should ban X because X offends person A. However a ban on X would offend B. In a society based on the rule of law, we must consider A and B equal, and thus look for something else to decide.
Now if we are in a theocracy the Reverend (Niles) outranks the heathen (Me!), and he would have his ban on beach boobies. Is that the type of society Niles thinks this is, or wants it to be.

Now I'm off to bed before I Illiterate again (and my thinking gets any fuzzier).