Britain should not “ban the burkha”
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association
It should be criticised for many reasons, but banning the burkha would run counter to a deep principle of liberal democratic society, argues Andrew Copson.
We’ve had lots of contact from members at the BHA office in response to the debate in France about the place of the burkha in French society and law. The BHA has also appeared on a few local radio stations to discuss this issue.
‘Banning’ anything is automatically controversial for obvious reasons – if you are discussing banning something in the first place it is only because a lot of people are doing it and all those people will obviously oppose any ban on their preferred activity. But this particular discussion is made even more charged by the fact that the burkha itself is a highly emotive symbol for western societies. We may not like the burkha, we may think it disrupts normal social contact (as in fact it is intended to) to the extent that we can never know a Muslim woman in the burkha that we meet as well as we may know one who goes unveiled, we may think it is a sign of the oppression of women and an insult to men. I myself think all these things.
It is a principle of a liberal democratic society that people have the freedom to do as they please as long as they don’t harm others. This means we may prohibit the burkha in some specific instances, where teachers are teaching small children for example, or in service industry jobs, or at times of necessary security such as airport gates. It may also mean that we recognise a difference between the right of adult women to chose what they wear, if that is a free choice, and the enforced wearing of a burkha by a child, which we might make moves to prevent. But it also means that we have no justification for an outright ban on the wearing of the burkha at all times.
In Iran, women are prosecuted because they are not wearing a head scarf or are improperly clothed and in Arabic countries similar or more strict legal sanctions apply. We do not want to end up with a reversed – though equally improper – situation in Europe. We can argue against the veil, we can encourage women not to wear it, but we should not ban people from wearing it in public unless they are harming others by doing so.
Besides the points of principle, the practical consequences of a ban may very well be negative, giving fuel to anti-liberal and anti-democratic extremists, and confining women who will be wearing the burkha come-what-may to the home.
I know that many people disagree. Some that I have talked to about this issue over the last couple of days have argued that the burkha is so objectively oppressive of women and is such an anti-social practice (not in the superficial sense of anti-social but in the sense that it radically disrupts normal social relations between people) that some sort of ban can be justified on the grounds that great harm is being done to others by this practice of a few. Others have argued that the practical consequences will not be as I have described but that – just as laws against racist hate speech played a part in radically reducing racism – a law against the burkha would in time erode the practice.
What do you think?
Andrew Copson is the Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association.
Britain should not “ban the burkha”,
Well said Andrew. I think you’ve pretty much covered it.
Personally I am against the burkha, in fact I’m oposed to any form of masking your identity in public space. I find women wearing burkhas threatening and I feel uneasy in their presence.There’s a Muslim woman that wears a burkha outside the office. What I dislike is that I feel that I’m expected to warn my Muslim colleague, whenever I notice an ‘unfamiliar’ man entering the office.
And that’s just my opinion about the issue on a practical level. On a symbolic level the veil embodies ideas that are (should be) unacceptable in a modern society.
I don’t have a opinion about banning the burkha yet, I’d have to find out more about this topic.
I think that the burka/Niqab is hideous because of the mentality behind its use. It stems from 7th century Arabic male insecurities – nothing to do with Islam originally, but it is now part and parcel of so much of the Islamic pathological gender separation mentality – that have no place in modern adult society, anywhere. As you stated, its purpose is to enforce non-inclusion in society and indirectly accuses all males of being potential rapists. It’s patently absurd. We only allow it because it’s associated with Islam and we’re supposed to show deference to this ‘great’ religion. Tosh. What if the burqa was being worn by the Freemasons, would we allow Freemasons into Banks wearing them? Hardly. And news to Muslims, the burqa never stopped a man with intent to molest. In Egypt where most women are wrapped up and hijabbed these days, from what I’ve read, the number of casual assaults and taunts is rife.
The burqa is not just another example of freedom of expression when it comes to apparel. Its purpose is to hide identity – not to augment it like rings, make-up and wigs. The burqa/niqab is different, in an unwelcome way. It’s use makes it harder for these women to get off the taxpayers back as employers are quite rightly reluctant to hire someone walking around in a mask all day long. I don’ think any burqa-wearing woman should be able to claim any unemployment benefit.
But I take your point on banning something. However, we should openly treat it with derision – firstly, for the sake of the women wearing them.
I think it is an attempt by French politicians to garner support from the large proportion of French citizens who feel they lack identity whilst combating the possibility that the Muslim faith is attempting to take over Europe by insinuating itself into the population and laws thereof.
I’m afraid Andrew’s wrong on this one. The people he mentions in his last paragraph, where he graciously admits the possibility of his error, have the right idea. I agree with Andrew on many things and am an admirer of his work in general, but having grown up in a Muslim society, I know I’m more qualified to talk about this than he is.
Moreover, if what he’s arguing for is the liberal democratic society, surely his and my arguments are irrelevant: what matters is what the majority thinks. I’m pretty sure if there was a referendum on it, the burkha would be banned by tomorrow.
This is such a difficult issue and I can see why non-Muslims would feel intimidated and thus dislike the burkha. However, it is also an integral part of the cultural background of huge swathes of people, many of whom have moved to Britain to avoid tyrannical regimes such as Afghanistan and Iran. It would therefore be unfair and morally wrong to completely ban the wearing of the burkha. What is important though is open discussion, on both sides, as to the cultural background and reasons for wearing this item of clothing. Perhaps, eventually, Muslim women will feel more integrated and the wearing of the burkha will slowly diminish. However, this is an evolutionary process, which (if it is going to happen) must be allowed to occur of its own free will. Enforcing a ban will only encourage isolationism and seperatism felt by Muslim communities, and, as Andrew said, will make us no better than the dictatorial regimes many of these people have escaped from.
I agree with Andrew. Banning anything is something we should think long and hard about before acting on. People wearing a burqa are entitled to wear what they decide to in this country and any of us making values judgements based on it should look at our own attitudes first.
Timmy, in a democratic society we cannot just go with majority opinion, otherwise we would have capital punsihment, flogging for burglary, that sort of thing. As a society we hand some of our control to a subset of elected representatives whom we (sometimes) trust and pay to take the time to consider the big picture and take decisions based on research and reflection, something most of us do not have time to do.
When I moved to Leicester ten years ago I found it quite a culture shock to find the streets where I lived full of people in long black robes that also covered the face, and some even covering the eyes with a veil. They were like a lot of ghosts walking about. Often they were with their husbands who wore western dress. After a few years I grew accustomed to this, but still see it as a form of self-policed social repression.
I’m in favour of an outright ban on these face-coverings. I can’t see that this would be a great hardship to anyone. The alternative of the hijab, which leaves the face open, is already worn by the majority of Muslim women and girls.
It could perhaps be combined with a ban on full-face masking motor cycle helmets, and on blacked out car windows.
Actually its hard to see how the French ban can work. They’re invoking a ban on religious symbols in a public place to ban the burkha, but it is questionable if the burkha can be seen as a religious symbol. Islam forbids the wearing of conspicuous adornments, and the burkha certainly counts on that score, and despite the claims of its enthusiasts, it dates from long after the time of the profit. Cloth was an expensive commodity in early Islamic cultures and nobody could afford to dress themselves from head to foot in black cloth, which was doubly expensive. The custom comes from the wealthier classes in the late medieval Gulf States, and was largely about showing how wealthy you were in an austeer kind of way – the same reason that wealthy English Puritans adopted black dress. So its hard to see how something can be banned as an Islamic symbol when its only marginally more Islamic than strapping a pork chop to your head…
There are a nuber of arguments raised by the article:
If adult women are allowed to wear burkha and children are prevented of the same, wouldn’t it give a confusing message to those children? It would be normal for the children to ask some questions.
The second argument is how could we be sure that the person wearing burkha is not going to harm anyone? Hiding identity is something that is not strange to terrorists. Majority probably wouldn’t, but one is too many.
Covering a face should not be classified as wearing clothes. It has a very different purpose and meaning than wearing clothes, therefore it is not adequate to compare the two. There are many ways how a woman can make herself unattractive to men, withouth covering her face (if that’s the case).
Saying that it is the women’s choice to wear burkha, reminds me of those women who say that it is their fault if their husbands beat them. Many people are not aware that it exists but I’ve knewn a few (women and men) who believed in that.
In any case, it is ridiculous to hear non-Muslims arguing about a meaning of wearing burkha. I heard some Muslim women arguing about the issue. Why would we trust and listen to anyone who has no connection to that. In my view, majority of Muslim women would be relieved by implementation of such law. Though, we cannot trust Muslim women either, because I’m sure that my then colleague who argued that Islam does require of women to be covered (herself being covered) and who claimed that it is an oppression against women, would never say that in public, like many similar to her who are not allowed to express their opinion.
Worrying about those women to become more isolated if they are forced to stay at home if burkha is banned? I believe that they cannot be more isolated by wearing burkha and that is exactly what they/their husbands want.
At the end, I wouldn’t worry so much about the anti-liberal, anti-democratic extremists. They will always find some fuel. A democratic society will never be good for them (until all women wear burkha, at least).
A thought on all that shout and complain about being treated unequally. People who usually complain are those who, in one way or another, make a statement about their diversity. I doubt they want to be treated equally.
I agree that ‘a law against burkha would in time erode the practice’.
I acknowledge all the points made in this article and have battled with them for sometime. However, I finally subscribe to the view that the Burka is a dehumanizing symbol which only serves to marginalize women. It exists because of religious dogma dictated by men. Here’s my blog on the subject prompted by an article in the UKTimes online (July 09). http://neandergal.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/burka-britain/
Quite frankly, the Burka is not part of British Culture and as such should not be allowed to be worn.
If you are coming to the UK, you have to accept the British way of life and our dress codes, a woman cannot walk around a Muslim country dressed in a mini skirt as she could in the UK.
It is a means of dis-empowering women and is also a security threat, eg why should a woman be allowed to enter a bank wearing a burka whilst a motorcyclist must take their’s off!! DISCRIMINATION!!!!
The Aussie prime minister was right in his comment, you asked to come here, if you don’t like it go home!!!
Do not try to impose your way of life in your country on us in the UK.
Unfortunately the UK bends over to the loud voices of the minority and therefore reacts to them rather than ‘listening’ to the silent majority.
Maybe this is why the UKIP and BNP are starting to grow in strength.
Of course, being a cynic I could say that labour wants as many foreigners assimilated into the population as they are guarenteed votes in the next election just in case policy changes and new immigrants are asked to return home.
I am not conservative or a labourite, I have no faith in modern politics or the gravy train that it has developed to stay in power. Weak government run by weak self serving people!!!
Maybe we should have a box on all the ballot paper that say ‘none of the above’, if this vote is over 50% then all politicians, MPs etc must resign and new ones must stand n the stead!!!
Rant over!!!
I attended a debate at the end of last year organised by the Muslim Debate Initiative about the place of Islam in society. Andrew was among the speakers. Others included someone from the BNP, both catholic and evangelical Anglicans, and a Muslim. There were many – mainy young – Muslim women in the audience, all but one simply wearing headscarves. Inevitably this question came up. Alan Craig, the evangelical, wanted to ban the niqab on the grounds that hiding the face crosses a line of acceptability. There was only one woman in the audience who was wearing one – in fact she had the full kit, including black gloves. She said that she was wearing it as her form of religious expresson – not because a brother, father or anyone else had asked her to – and therefore that no-one should have the right to stop her from doing so.
I spoke to her and he friends afterwards. Her friends, all young Muslim women, said that there was no way they would have dared “to come to an event like this dressed like that”. They thought she was rather brave. I congratulated her on the courage to stand up and say what she believed. But then felt that I had to say that she had to accept that the price of wearing it was that other people would react to her in a negative way because they were unable to see her face and were being shut out. Rightly or wrongly, that was the choice she was making.
Humanists, more than others, should surely defend the right to freedom of belief and expression, provided it does not have a negative impact on other people. Just because you or I don’t like the burka or the niqab is no reason to ban it. I’m not keen on body piercings either. Prejudices are something that should be challenged rather than simply given in to.
On the other hand, if you have to remove a motorcycle helmet when you go into a bank,, then we shouldn’t have a different rule for people who normally cover their faces for religious reasons. Same applies to aiport security. And the human interaction required between a school teacher and her pupils, or a doctor and her patients, should mean that covering your face effectively disqualifies you from meeting the requirements of those professions – at least if they’re state-funded.
I’m with Andrew on this one: surely we should be able to defend freedom of expression while avoiding religious privilege.
I agree with Andrew – we don’t want to become a mirror image of Iran and have laws about what people can and can’t wear. If we did I might ban fat girls from wearing crop tops, builders from wearing low-cut jeans… where do we stop?
But I’d also like to support Jeremy’s comment that there will be professions that are bound to be barred to or very difficult for completely veiled women. I don’t think teachers or anyone that one consults, e g, solicitors, doctors, should be veiled as it so restricts communication. Where we can choose the professionals that we consult or the shops we patronise, perhaps we could leave that to the free market to decide – and presumably burqa-clad women wouldn’t attract many customers. Where we have little or no choice, e g about who teaches your child in the local state school or which NHS hospital doctor treats you, then there should be professional dress codes that preclude employing burqa-clad women.
I agree with Andrew Copson.
Freedoms are hard won. Freedom to dress as one chooses is one marker of a free society.
If I choose to go around in a Star Trek costume, I am free to do so. People might laugh, but it is my right.
By chance I came across the naked bike ride in Brighton this summer. What a free society we have!
Freedom of expression is bound to annoy some people. That’s life.
And where would it stop? Are nuns to be forbidden wearing their penguin outfits?
Well said, but France is a laîc républic and its gonna be difficult to let all the religious people wearing all kinds of signs and ask the respect for it.
I prefer no sign at all for all the religions.
Excuse my english
Sincerely yours
Jean-claude Roux
France
Not too sure about this ‘Muslim Women’. I have met many ‘Muslim Women’ from Bangladesh etc., not one even wears a scarf. They shake my hand and give me a hug, may I say, in front of their husbands. Even the ladies from Iran I have met do not wear a scarf, here!
I live in Australia and assist immigrants to settle, they come from all over the world. It is not the religion that demands the wearing of the burqa but the crackpot deluded people in government!
I think that perhaps there are more serious issues that the BHA could be concerning itself with.
For what it’s worth, we took a vote on this issue at the meeting of SW London Humanists today. There were a number of abstensions among the 30 or so people present, but here’s the result:
- Ban Muslim dress that covers the face, it’s oppressive to women – 10
- Don’t ban, allow people to dresss as they wish – 13
- Ban only except in selected cases (mainly where where seeing the other persons’s face is a requirement, such as teaching in primary schools, doctors….) – 22.
When I was young it was considered shocking to wear white socks with a suit (it was the 80′s) and my manager had a quiet word with me about it. All this succeeded in doing was making me want to wear them even more.
I hate the niqab personally, but by banning it we’d just polarise opinion and make the more militant members of the faith want to wear it even more.
What the silly people that use it because they think they’re being clever or they are making some sort of statement don’t realise is that at the moment they are free to choose. When the trend to wear it has become established as the norm over a few years they may find that they are not quite so free to stop wearing it.
It’s a fool’s game they’re playing.
I have lived for several years in an Arab country where the full face cover of a woman in public places is mandatory and enforced. I have been in other Muslim countries were that is not required of a woman. It is a cultural matter.
While the UK population is normally tolerant of immigrant cultural ways there is a defining difference with viewing the covering of the face as simply a cultural effect…it makes communication difficult for the indigenous host who is accustomed to facing the person who is being addressed, of judging the facial expressions as part of the exchange. Hiding the face makes one feel that there is something hidden..hence the unease.It is not acceptable.
John.
When in Rome, do as the Romans. Your open face is so important to others who can “read” your face and tell so much as to how you are feeling; happy or sad, worried or not, lying or being truthful (a bit dodgy this one).
I do not know whether a woman wears the burka willingly or because she is obliged to so do. I would not be prepared to have a dialogue with anyone wearing a burka in this country.
Derek
The wearing of a burka in public should be banned in this country.
1. In our society the only people who have covered their faces have been criminals.
2. Ours is a friendly society, ready to smile or exchange a friendly word with anyone we meet.
How can you smile at a piece of cloth?
3. What’s the point of CCTV cameras if covered faces are acceptable?
4. This is a personal reason. It fills me with such horror when I see this shrouded figure stumbling along a
few yards behind her lord and master that I am sure it shows on my face. She is bound to interpret this as
hostility to herself or to Moslems in general. Needless to say neither of these is true.
Of course it should! Society often bans things that are are detrimental to societal health and well being.
The burqa is a straight jacket and mobile prison for women; it is oppressive.
Repressing women is not a right; banning the burka is a defence of rights.
I’d suggest those who defend the burka to wear it for a day and then see if they can still defend it.
For more info on this, you can see my article: What’s all the fuss about the veil: http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2007/03/whats-all-fuss-about-veil.html
Also, here is an interview I did on Woman’s Hour in defence of the ban: http://onelawforall.org.uk/mediaPages/mediaFiles/June-2009-wome%27sHour.mp3
I agree almost completely with Andrew’s views.
I take the point that veils etc. may be a symptom of repression of women – but I don’t think that trying to fix a ‘symptom’ will address the underlying issue. More to the point, I am completely against any kind of censorship of clothing by law. Clothing does not harm others and is an expression of individuality and choice which I support.
As it happens I would like our government to remove the ban on public nudity (which law seems to have a similar origin to the burqa: that if they see naked women, men will not be able to control themselves – prudism and hygiene being the other reasons cited).
I am suspicious of those who home in specifically on women wearing the burqa as being threatening or difficult to communicate with. Why not also mention bearded men with sunglasses? There seems less acceptance of coverings which are not typical in British culture. Personally I do prefer to be able to see facial expressions when I communicate, but people have all sorts of reasons for not being totally visible, and I think it arrogant and tyrannical to force people to reveal their faces. It is not too much of a sacrifice to talk to people whose faces are not visible: we do it on the phone and internet every day.
Targetting the burqa specifically is a result of fear and prejudice. More legislation on what people can or cannot wear [barring workplace health/safety rules] is a restriction on freedom that I would never like to see in this country (and find rather disturbing in others).
Sophie
The Burkha was created by tribal men who want to supress their women, it is an oppresive item and has no place in Britan, a country after all that prides itself on equality and freedom. In no way should any Brit be concerned about the human rights of those that wish to wear it or for their wifes to wear it.
The Bhurka is in no way an Ilsamic religous item allthough it has been adopted as one purely to rub in the faces of the people who have welcomed these people into our country and offered them shelter from whatever problems they were claiming to have back home. The vast majority of muslim women are happy to wear the hijab but are not so happy to wear the Burkha or Niqab which are items that have been designed to completely remove a persons identity.
We should ban the Burkha as it stands for exaclty the opposite of what Great Britain stands for!!
I deplore the niqab (almost no-one wears the burka). Free women don’t wear masks, in my view, but a general ban on either would be repressive.
Specific bans in specific times and places should be allowed, where there is legitimate purpose being carried out and the ban is on all forms of face-covering and not just religious headgear. For example, a school may not want children to be collected by unidentifiable people. An employer may implement security by requiring employees to display photo-ID cards and show their faces in order to authenticate their identity.
There are many good reasons to wish the head-concealing burqa gone. We did, after all, evolve in small face-to-face groups and hostility is natural enough. The burqa highlights the male domination of women, particularly the ownership and control of their sexuality (not limited to Islam of course). The principle of liberty is offended – and so are the rest of us. It determinedly sets Muslims apart and, along with the excluding language of the koran and much else, denies access which might lead to gradual integration. (Should we still be pluralistically fighting as Celts, Romans, … ?) Religion is merely the cover story for a nasty extremism.
So the question is about tactics. Is there a relevant precedent from which we could learn? My instinct is to ban the the thing, but caution and the usually reliable recipe of 10 carrots to 1 stick suggest beginning otherwise. We should give much more robust support for those within religion who seek to diverge (‘honour killings’ seem very suited to deterrent sentences). We could seek to strengthen custom which restrains ideological markers in the public realm and employment. We might ban entry to this country. We should require that separatist schools provide at minimum the National Curriculum with a broad and critical RE as a part (i.e. not in the hands of absurd local Sacres). We should be positive and interactive whenever reasonably possible (if you can even manage an affable response and direct gaze into the eyes of the wretched wearer, that rather undermines it). In short, encourage those more moderate, leave options open, but actively promote change.
There has always been some prescription in what one may wear in public. The naked walker has been arrested almost everywhere he has been, though Scotland seems more diligent at putting him behind bars. Tesco now ban shoppers who wear pyjamas, restaurant’s ban shorts, football shirts and sometimes the tie-less. Hoodies are not welcome in shopping centres. The criteria seems to be – do not offend others. Wear what you like within reason.
With the burqua the principal complaint is that covering the face is not considered acceptable by general European society. I am surprised some of our more imaginative criminals have not held up a bank under cover of a burqua – if they did then I think action would be taken.
I feel that it is incumbent upon those visiting another culture to respect that culture.Europeans are expected to do so when they visit the middle east, and so should Arabs when they come to Europe. I think the lack of respect by some Arabs is at the root of much of the Islamophobia prevalent in this country. This smacks of hypocrisy, a trait that is the most detested by the British.
I accept all the criticism of any form of clothing which maintains sexism, and I support expressing that critique. I think the burkha but also any other form of prescribed covering for women is repressive (mind you, wet t-shirt contests are not the pinnacle of liberation either).
I just don’t think it is in women’s interests to ban it. A feminist argument surely should not be used in order to subject women to legal sanction. Surely if prohibitionists were really interested in women’s liberation, the correct course of action would be to outlaw the imposition of clothing on women by men.
After all, prostitition is widely criticised on feminist grounds, but there are plenty of feminist arguments against the prohibition of prostitution (as opposed to, say, prosecuting kerb crawlers).
Bernie Doeser is correct that there are legal limits to what people can or cannot wear in public. The famous naked rambler is cited. But this is a question of what those limits should be; the existence of current limits doesn’t help us decide whether to permit or prohibit the Burkha. Nor does it tell us whether the limits that current exist are reasonable. At the moment, it looks like the naked rambler could end up in prison forever: is that remotely proportionate to his supposed offence?
The criteria surely cannot be “do not offend others”, because whatever we do offends someone. Some of the women wearing the burkha may be offended by women who don’t.
Bernie also argues that “those visiting another culture” should “respect that culture”. I’m not sure we mean the same by “respect”, since I see no such necessity or expectation. Saudi Arabia cannot force me to “respect” its culture if I visit the country: though it can force me to obey its laws. Nor is it clear that we are talking about visitors, though some may be. Equally, some may be British citizens.
Bernie appears to be advocating making “cultural disrespect” illegal. Who defines what constitutes a “culture”? Cultures are not monolithic. What you are suggesting would not have been in the interests of religious rebels in Britain, and is not so far from what Saudi fundamentalists say.
Finally, there is an assumption that we are talking about “Arabs”, but not all wearers of the full body covering are Arabs.
Steve Christopher makes some similiar dismal cultural arguments. They have to rejected by anyone – and surely this includes humanists – who dissents from much of what “Britain stands for” (whatever that is). Who decides what Britains stands for? Why should we give them that power?
Maryam Namazie, for whom I have great respect, observes that “Society often bans things that are are detrimental to societal health and well being.” This is true. The question is: should it, always? Is prohibition always the best approach? Not, I suggest, if prohibition itself turns out to be socially detrimental – as it often does. I can’t see how we can free women by threatening to lock them up if they wear the wrong clothes. I can’t see how a ban on wearing the burkha in public will help reduce the repression of women in highly religious and sexist homes. In fact, it could make it worse.
Resisting the prohibition of the Burhka is not the same as defending it, any more than criticising alcohol or drug prohibition is the same as advocating alcohol or drug use.
Further, it is clear that some modern muslim women are in fact choosing to wear extreme clothing in order to make a political/cultural statement. In other words, some women are deliberately adopting the burkha or similar – often against the wishes of their families, including the men in their families.
Jean Davies offered several reasons for banning the Burkha. None are compelling. In fact they are trivial.
>>1. In our society the only people who have covered their faces have been criminals.
Untrue, not least since we evidently now have people who cover their faces and are not criminals.
>>2. Ours is a friendly society, ready to smile or exchange a friendly word with anyone we meet.
>>How can you smile at a piece of cloth?
Easily, I would have thought. Raise sides of mouth, display teeth. There, not so difficult, eh? But in any case, surely we can’t go around banning things just because we can’t smile at them?
>>3. What’s the point of CCTV cameras if covered faces are acceptable?
That’s a good question. What’s your answer? If CCTV is being used for active monitoring rather than recording, then there’s no problem.
>>4. This is a personal reason. It fills me with such horror when I see this shrouded figure…
The last thing we should do is legislate against being “offended”. That’s a repressive road if ever there was one.
So no, don’t ban it. But oppose sexist wherever you find it, and support secularism whenever you can.
Dan
As a bank cashier I would feel considerable anxiety if someone entered the bank wearing a burkha.What a perfect disguise and also what a perfect outfit under which to hide a gun.
When looking at creating crimes for people’s actions which actually only hurt themselves I am reminded of the Stonewall trial where it was agreed, I believe, that if a masochist wishes another person to spear a part of their body this is ok.
Surely these women are like those masochists? Everyone can see that by covering their faces & bodies they are making it impossible to run if they need to (towards or away from anything), and they are deliberately setting themselves apart from everyone else, which also hurts them, because at heart all people are social animals.
But can we therefore criminalise them?
If I had to criminalise anyone it would be the so-called “community leaders” who promote such masochism in women.
Maybe we can’t ban the burkha but it ought to have a government health warning. Women who wear the burkha in public or stay indoors suffer from vitamin D deficiency, which causes serious health problems including loss of bone density and muscle weakness. In the UK, we’d eliminated rickets in children during the 1940s, thanks to cleaner air and dietary supplements. Now it’s on the increase again, mainly in Muslim communities where the women wear burkhas during pregnancy.
If we can campaign against smoking and heavy drinking on health grounds, surely we should do the same with burkha-wearing.
The effects of vitamin D deficiency are a serious problem in South Asia (http://www.pjms.com.pk/issues/octdec208/article/reviewarticle1.html). It’s absurd that we should have the problem here, with the NHS, access to healthy diets, and a public health system that’s the envy of many.
I personally think that religion is a danger to the well being and the emotional and intellectual growth of the human race. I am happy with getting rid of all signs of religions, although I wold keep religious monuments up for their historical values
I think France is very brave to live up to its constitution that says that there is a separation between church and state. As far as I know, French schools do not offer kosher or hallal food at the canteen counter.
Dear Readers,
Yes, we should ban the hijab/burkha/face cloth/veil/Darth Vader Suit!
We have been swamped by muslims here in Australia, that streets, shopping malls are not recognizable anymore!
There is also polygamy extending among muslim migrants. There are muslim males donning multiple women and producing multiple children which equals: more conflict, domestic violence between wives, neglect and chaos and confusion of children, whilst daddy chooses one wife from the other! What a bleeding mess!!!!
Then we have our welfare system going rife with welfare dependency, where all these migrants, (mainly muslims) depend on welfare as a form of lifelong security. My neighbours are middle eastern, they don’t work, they cannot speak English, they just yell and shout all day (6 middle eastern males!). Recently their illegal large family were evicted for staying in the house next door for over 2 years, until I noticed how many burkhas were walking around their backyard, (all pregnant, baby machines!). Multiple children, multiple fathers, multiple mothers. This is not what we want in our western country, please!
Then you have the muslims evading our tax system. In their law, from their belief, they do not believe in paying taxes.
My neighbours have a satellite dish, they stay up all night yelling and shouting, 5 times a day prayer time like living next door to a mosque, they invite their noisy visitors 24/7, the public housing system only protects them.
These low lifes (the majority of them), are taking over our western values, soon they will out number us, (christians), and soon we will see burkhas everywhere we go! What a horrible country we will have soon.
It is our politicians bringing them in to populate even more, and we already have a lack of sustainability, including water, jobs and they are just taking not giving.
Ban the burkha, they look like terrorists, especially in a bank, and should be removed and condemned like helmets are. In shopping malls the burkas and face cloths look frightening, and also the women (or men behind them, who know who they are), can steal whatever they like, they just need a basket underneath the abaya!!!! What better way to get a life of ‘stealing’????
They are hypocrits, when you live in their country, you have to cover all your skin up or else you’ll be jailed or punished severely by being stoned. When they come to live in our country, they are free to practice and do what they like, wear their stupid tents and look like terrorists, and we, let them!!!! we cannot discriminate because we are a multicultural society!!!!
Well I am not, I am against this muslim mental disorder costume, where a muslim women can also get away with her identification even on a driver’s licence her husband can dress up like a woman and refuse to show his/her face, and attack anyone they so wish.
What a life with muslims, what a punishment western society is condemned to.
Anti-muslim Person
Why don’t we just walk around in the nude and then hopefully all the muslims will be so offended that they will flee back to whence they came from!
What a relief not to see veils, burkhas, headjobs (hijabs) anymore!!!!\
What liars and hyprocrits are the muslims. How they treated me in their country was offensive and brutal, and how I will treat them in mine will be another matter.
I don’t give covered women any respect, I even ask them are they planning to rob a bank or do they have a gun under their tent or something.
They grunt, look away, and the male escorts the thing like tent wrapping into the shopping mall.
Later I see them, and many others with face covering trying to eat a meal in the ‘Food Court’., what a laugh.
Down load a muslim woman trying to eat under her face covering, and you’ll see how mentally disordered this cult really are! Or better still go on youtube and search for burkha swimming in a pool and you’ll also get a good laugh.
The drowning rate for women in Saudi Arabian swimming pools and beaches is very high. They like to swim with kilos of wrappings on them, and then wonder why they cannot float! They even put floaties on their arms, what a laugh, on top of layers of lyra, face cloths, head cloths, and the heat is strifling in Saudi Arabia over 55+ and they wonder why they get head lice, mental disorders.
They depend on western influences, like scientists working in the middle east to help them find the brains to excavate the oil etc. They depend on western everything, and yet they hate us with all their might, they loathe us and call the western expatriate women who visit their country, “prostitutes”, because we uncover and show our skin, even wearing a t-shirt is ‘haram’ to them.
I wonder who is the prostitute, them or us?????? hmmmmm, one who wears layers of cloths and looks like a gift wrapped love doll, or someone who looks you in the eye, shows some arm or leg or face, and looks honest, genuine and authentic?????
I wouldn’t trust anyone wearing a burkha in a bank, if I were a bank teller, would you?????
Come on, we need to get tough on burkhas, they are a threat to Britain, America and to Australia. They have already taken over many western countries. Soon they will take over ours and we cannot do anything about them, as they are outnumbering us daily, with their baby production line, their welfare dependency, their islamic schools, non-integration into western values, and condemning our Christmases and Easters, and christian faith in schools. They even have prayer rooms in many places, which I find deplorable.
Let us tell them who is stronger. Is it us or them????
Laura- “soon they will out number us, (christians)” = you are on the wrong website. I’m sure your bigotry and xenophobia would find a more sympathetic audience here, as they seem to be Australia’s version of the BNP. http://www.australiafirstparty.com.au/cms/
Having read Andrew’s article and all the comments, where previously I was equivocal about the issue, I am now convinced we are in a catch-22 situation! We know that British citizens can be jailed for kissing in public in Dubai (see report in to-day’s online Guardian), and it is clear that Westerners are forced to conform to MIddle Eastern mores whilst working or visiting these so-called Muslim states, so why should we not ban the wearing of a burkha? Well, because we would risk being as intolerant and backward as those we accuse in other cultures. So we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
I have great sympathy with Maryam Namazie’s campaign and I totally agree that for the majority of women forced to wear a veil it is a form of sexual apartheid. However, if we ban the veil outright won’t these women be forced into an intolerable position, locked up in their own homes?
Yossarian escaped Catch-22 in the end by running away; I suspect that we’ll find a similar solution with the good old British compromise of showing our disapproval and hoping the problem will go away…
Hi
of course we shouldn’t ban it. When you ‘ban’ something…it simply politicises it and makes people more determined to wear it…as a protest!
Let people wear what they want, ensuring that people can’t be persuaded to wear it out of reasons of solidarity.
Hiding one’s identity by the extreme wearing of any article of clothing covering one’s face must be socially condemned. For security reasons any shopkeeper, banker etc. must be entitled to insist that head coverings be removed on entering premises. Any person in authority, such as police, must have powers to remove sufficient clothing in order to fully identify anyone.
Whether it is wise to outlaw such concealment is more debatable. Is it possible for education, of both children and adults, to eliminate these unhealthy and unsocial ideas of women concealing their ‘beauty’, which appears to be the basis of these peculiar ideas?
There are also health issues involved in connection with some of these ideas about ‘modesty’. It is clear that children and adults need regular exercise and that skin needs to be exposed regularly to summer sun, in order to ensure basic health. Education is probably the only way to go, but schools should also have the power to insist on suitable uniform sports gear for all pupils.
Certain basics for people planning to live permanently in this country should be be insisted on. A basic knowledge of the English language, and norms of behaviour, or social and political set up needs to be agreed, possibly with the agreement of any ethnic groups. British people retiring abroad are not a good example, in many cases not learning the language, and socialising only with other Brits! None of this need alter a person or groups identity, in my opinion. If people are to be offered housing, education and privilages of citizenship, they should expect to agree on certain sstandards, which need to be discussed and agreed, so as not to deny any important human rights.
“., I am really thankful to this topic because it really gives up to date information –”