Janice Turner in the Times "Frenzy about the burka is no help to women"

I'll go with Janice: personal choice as to what you wear, lovely. But in situations where this impinges on others there are boundaries which should be protected by law from challenge. So for example you can't expect to be able to carry out surgery dressed as a Klingon, and you can't expect to be able to teach a class or walk into a bank with a helmet on or your face covered.

This also tacitly keeps clear that it is perceived as a respected personal choice and moves away from supporting a religious or cultural belief that must be respected by all in all situations regardless.

I very much agree with the line in the Jo Bartosch piece: "There is nothing more racist than thinking something is acceptable for ‘other’ people that you would not want for yourself."

It seems to me there is a difficulty in opposing the niqab, though. Some people say they oppose it because the women who wear it are oppressed and forced to wear it by men. Others say they oppose it because the women who wear it are doing so to make a religious and ideological statement - deliberately covering up their faces to show how pro-Islam they are and also in defiance of Western values.

And those are two very different things. How do you deal with them?

Obviously none of us believe women should be forced by their husbands into covering up their faces. But what good would banning it do? You're just criminalising the victims. That makes no sense.

As for women who are doing it deliberately, it's not great, but I can imagine that criminalising it would just make them more angry and more defiant. Positions would become more entrenched and polarised. And in any case, when you think of all the anti-social things people already do and get away with (dropping litter, urinating in the street, playing loud music in public etc) it seems a bit harsh to pick on women wearing veils. They aren't actually doing any harm; they're just looking slightly sinister.

So I don't see there's a lot we can do. And yet symbolically the face veil is very powerful - I feel very angry and alienated when I see women wearing one, because in so many other places it's used systematically to oppress women.

I like the key theme she follows: to what extent should personal choice be sacred cow that everyone else must respect, and where is the line between the right to freedom of personal choice and the boundaries imposed by the rights and interests of others?

I don't know what the full consequences might be. However as Danish law prohibits full face covering masks in public the logical conclusion of a contonued refusal must be that they are forceably removed. I don't have an issue with that.

I don't know if anyone has shared this, but it's good:

unherd.com/2018/08/questioning-misogynistic-veil-isnt-racist/

The thing is, the face veil is a ridiculous garment. I despise Boris Johnson as much as the next person, but he's right about that.

I just thought it was strange that you would deliberately ignore a question if you were so capable of answering it

Oh fgs get over yourself "deliberately ignore a question" I didn't even notice the post you are making a fuss about. I have now however answered it at least twice.

I didn't demand anything I just thought it was strange that you would deliberately ignore a question if you were so capable of answering it.

You use phrases such as 'I assume' and 'I expect' when it comes to how these women would be punished, even though we know of cases which I mentioned in my earlier post, so how can you still think that the only consequence would be fines or arrest as opposed to the cases already happening?

How can you assume that they are using fines only when we have cases of police forcing a woman to take off her clothes kn a beach in France and another man ripping the burka off another in Denmark?

Taco. No one posting here is obliged to answer or even read or even notice all posts. Demanding an answer to a post smacks of egoism.

I would expect anyone who refuses to remove it to be arrested and if need be taken to a police station where they will have no more right than any other masked person to refuse to remove a mask.

Some niqab wearers may choose to be housebound. We wouldn't be confining them to the house, their husband/ family would be. It would reduce the number of women wearing it though and show that in the Uk it isn't considered appropriate attire for women in the same way wandering around naked isn't. people who want to wander around nude in public aren't described as being confined to the house.
This stuff is always about women. No-one did anything about FGM for years because "culture and inclusivity" now the same arguments are being used for the niqab. Some things don't deserve to be included.

Also Boris Johnson’s hair is awful.

I used to wonder how Germans took Hitler seriously, what with his silly moustache and hair. But now that I've seen Trump and Johnson in action I think it's a deliberate ploy, people make jokes about the hair, it gets attention, makes them 'interesting'. He (Johnson) dyes his hair AFAIK, and deliberately musses it up to enhance the overgrown-schoolboy look. If he didn't have the hair, what would be noticeable about him? It makes him instantly noticeable.

Also Boris Johnson’s hair is awful.

Just to add the list Leicester- there must be more than a thousand niqab wearers in the country.

I think if there was a ban, you would effectively confine some wearers to bring housebound. I work with about 10 niqab wearers and some of those people practise ‘purdah’ at home, where the only males welcome in their house are immediate family members. Some of these girls and women do not really access many public spaces as it is. None have implied that there is any pressure to wear the niqab.

Personally I’m not a fan but I also don’t like topless men walking around city centres when the sun comes out, I don’t like t-shirts which have offensive images (especially the ones of a semi- naked woman- normally worn by the aforementioned topless men when they feel a chill) and I think crocs and ugg boots are fugly.

In Scotland you see hardly any woman in Niqab etc. I'd be happy with a ban, or a ban age under 18. It's sexist medieval attire that looks silly and instantly makes you classify these women as "other" where as the men can blend in.

A few random thoughts - Boris is past master at running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. Virtue signalling that there shouldn't be a ban, while keeping burka-haters onside by making letterbox jokes.

It's irritating when people rant on about colonialism. Ordinary British people had it just as tough, because the people who were running colonies abroad came from the same class that was oppressing the working classes at home. And now those working classes have to take on the guilt of the colonial masters. A win-win for the masters!

I agree with a ban.

Errol - yup, I'm in the north, not a big city, and there are always young women in niqabs whenever I go out to the town centre. Many more wear the hijab, and all black these days.

There is no requirement in the religion to wear this clothing. Even if there was, that's no reason why we should allow it here. Religion should not give men a free pass to abuse women for being women in this country.

*Taco the egotism of some posters never ceases to amaze me "you didn't respond to me"

I assume France et al are enforcing the law through fines. I support a ban.*

It's not intended to be egotism but it does seem as if you can't answer a question when you ignore one and answer another.

How can you assume that they are using fines only when we have cases of police forcing a woman to take off her clothes kn a beach in France and another man ripping the burka off another in Denmark?

And presumably they will be asked to remove it as any other person in the countries which have banned it will be asked to remove a full face mask.

The article in The Telegraph is very persuasive.

Taco the egotism of some posters never ceases to amaze me "you didn't respond to me"

I assume France et al are enforcing the law through fines. I support a ban.

• Have you been to Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Birmingham,Blackburn,Bolton,Walsall or Coventry (for eg) lately?

And Preston. Rarely go to Sainsbury's or the town centre without seeing at least a couple of ladies in niqabs.

There's a very interesting article in today's Telegraph by Qanta Ahmed I back Boris on the burka, and so do millions of Muslim women like me. I read it in my DF's paper but unfortunately it's a premium article so you need a subscription to read it.

She writes: "I fully back Boris's right to objectify the veil because the veil itself is an instrument of objectification. Unlike him, however, I would ban the niqab from British streets altogether. Its true purpose is to demarcate the wearer and the secular world, to overshadow the public space. It derives from misogyny. Islamism views women as a threat to society, so it is best that they are seen and not heard. Some women even remain veiled inside their family homes. My religion does mandate modesty, but there is no basis in Islam for the niqab."

"The reaction to Boris's comments, particularly the false accusation of Islamophobia, plays into the Islamicists' hands. It masks the diversity of Muslim opinion, treating voices like mine as if they do not exist, and aided by pseudo-intellectual liberals in the West, allows Islamists to falsely present their dress code as the only true face of Islam."

How would this covering have protected women from rape by colonialist men?

The thobe , particularly if no head covering isn't worn, isn't covering anything more than what men cover with long sleeve shirts and trousers.

This is a fair point although I do notice how you (seemingly deliberately) failed to respond to me quoting you directly above my second post.

I know the niqab has been given religious significance by some relatively new Islamic sects, but I remember hearing many years ago a Muslim professor saying that the burkha because a practice in Afghanistan some three hundred years ago to protect women from Colonialist men.

I can believe this, having read so many nineteenth-century novels where men who had raped a native woman were perfectly acceptable in English society.

Excellent articles. There are two things that are really annoying me about the way this debate is playing out:

The way it is being used for virtue-signalling by the non-Muslim liberal left. To be honest, as I'm usually a member of that group, I find the lack of critical thought evidenced embarrassing.

The constant repetition of "but where do you draw the line" as if that is the ultimate trump card, when it is blindingly bloody obvious and has been stated many, many times that the line is face coverings. I don't like the hijab, I don't like what it stands for and I hate in particular seeing little girls wearing it, but I accept that until someone tells me to wear it, or someone asks me to support their right not to wear it, it's none of my damned business. But the niqab is a barrier to communication in a way that European culture has long considered unacceptable and I do not believe it is racist to insist on maintaining that cultural norm.

No men wear a face veil but millions of Arab men wear a thobe which covers everything except for the face, hands and feet

Nor does it completely hide their hair. Odd that only women need to hide their faces to be close to their god. The thobe , particularly if no head covering isn't worn, isn't covering anything more than what men cover with long sleeve shirts and trousers.