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.

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…

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????

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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

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.