so UKIP want to ban the burkha...

[rosiejoy]

I thought twice about posting this, didnt want to give more attention than necessary to such petty spiteful behaviour.

But then realised its important people know this is being said.

No surprises its a daily mail link

atlantis,

There is no way that Farage will win in Buckingham, although it will be UKIP's best seat by a long way.

Bercow has a majority of almost 20000, and will get almost all the votes from people who voted Labour/Lib Dem last time because he is standing as Speaker.

Not to mention, Buckingham is the sort of place with a highly educated and affluent population. Definitely not "BNP territory". This new burkha-ban policy will probably go down quite badly there.

It's true that Tories all hate Bercow though. I suspect he might lose his job straight away in a new Parliament if there is another secret vote for Speaker.

My guess is that Farage will get about 10000 votes, and Bercow will end up with a majority of about 12000.

Motorcycle helmet in banks/petrol stations is a security issue. There was a related issue a couple of years ago when a shopping centre banned hoodies. The reasoning being, if people are hiding their facse, that might well be because they don't wish to be recognised because they have criminal intentions.

Obviously, there is a scope for criminals using the niqab to disguise themselves. I'm not sure how many people would feel comfortable asking a "lady" to remove her veil, even if they suspected that all was not as it seems. (For example, suspecting that the "lady" might, in fact, be a man with criminal intentions).

Just trying to make the point that there are practical as well as philosophical issues concerning the weasring of a burkha/niqab in the UK. And, of course, that there is no absolute freedom of dress here in any case.

Ban UKIP? Why?

scarletlilybug,

It is already legal for shops/petrol stations/banks to have signs which say "No motorcycle helmets" or even "no football shirts".

Loads of shops already say "no groups of more than 2 schoolkids".

I support them being allowed to say "no covered faces".

But that is hugely different from what UKIP are saying. They want to ban the burkha in public completely.

I have no problem with women wearing burkhas in the UK, IF that is the choice of the woman. But I do worry that in some cases it will be the choice of the husband or father, but I guess that is whole different kettle of fish.

slightlystressed,

Where there is such a horrible and controlling culture, I would prefer women to be able to leave the house with a burkha than be virtually imprisoned inside if they can't wear one.

I don't think the burkha is a good contribution to Britain. It's often an almost medieval symbol of male oppression. I really don't like it one bit - but that still doesn't mean it should be banned.

Of course, it is easy to find exceptions where women choose to wear it despite their DH's fervent objections, etc - but we all know that isn't the reason it is worn, by and large.

When I read this in the Times, I was struck by the irony of banning something because it was 'not compatible with traditional British freedoms'

If anyone did try to bring in such a law I'd respond by wearing a balaclava.

[and to clarify, I'm not a muslim, I just think its ridiculous to either proscribe or prescribe headwear. I don't think a man should force his wife or daughters to wear any particular headwear and I don't think anyone else should ban it either).

I don't actually believe this has anything to do with banning the burkha, but to play Devil's Advocate:

Turkey bans burkhas, as well as niqabs and even hijabs, I think. It is also by some distance the most progressive, pro-democracy majority Muslim country. In particular, it has more women's rights than almost any other majority Muslim country.

Correlation/causation not clear, but it IS clear that a state imposed ethos of "secular" Islam has worked reasonably well there.

Atlantis - not all women of childbearing age can, will or want to have children. Some have already done it.
It is quite right to say that there is a huge burden placed on small businesses by the current legislation on maternity leave. But what that quote says is that for every woman of childbearing age, the risk is so awful that it will outweigh every other factor (eg the fact that the woman may happen to be the best person for the job....). Which is clearly rubbish - there will be many cases where a small business owner decides quite rationally that the risk is worth taking to get that particular woman's set of skills, or because they happen to know that the woman is unlikely to have children (even though this is not something they can ask about in interviews).
There is every justification for saying 'this is a problem and it may undermine the intention of the legislation', but saying businesses who choose to employ any woman of childbearing age need their heads examined is an unjustified generalisation to the point of being loopy.

?any small businessman or woman who employs a woman of child-bearing age needs" to purchase maternity insurance.

But I suppose I would agree that it needs to be parental leave rather than maternity leave. So that UKIP can say that employing anybody in Britain is a waste of time and employers should outsource to a country with fewer rights..... erm.... hang on a minute....

(It's a bloody amazing change though. I was chatting to my fellow student mates yesterday, all of whom are 20 or thereabouts, and one was fulminating about the unbelievable shortness of maternity leave at 1 year.... she was gobsmacked when I told her what it used to be.)

as you were.

I know, choosy, I went back when ds1 was 10 weeks old and when ds2 was 12 weeks.

A year would have been heaven!

My dd became obsessed with nuns for a while (Sound of Music). Whenever she saw a woman in a burqa she would hop up and down: "Look mum! Look mum! A nun! A nun!"

Would UKIP want to ban nuns too?

In the Netherlands there is this idiot attention seeking 'politician' called Geert Wilders. He wants to bring in a special tax that women who wear headscarves or other coverings would need to pay - for polluting the townscape, I think.

The scary thing is that people do actually vote for him.

wasn't Geert Wilders banned from the UK for a while? He wrote abook slagging off Islam I believe.

ditto Artic Fox. especially on the communicaion issue. If was being treated by a Dr Wearing a Burka I would ask her to uncover her face, since it is not based on religious comopulsion.

compulsion even

I agree with UKIP. I've known Muslim women who have been forced to wear burqas by their husbands and fathers, and can only see it as a sign of oppression. I can't see why any woman would want to cover her entire body up. Modesty is all very well but the burqa is something else.

mateykate - I wasnt going to post on this thread, but just wanted to say something about Turkey.

You can wear a hijab in Turkey and once outside the major cities women generally do, however you cannot attend university, be a teacher or a civil servant if you wear a headscarf.... so because you cover your head you cannot get yourself educated to the level you might aspire to, that is an infringment of human rights in my opinion and secularism taken too far. And I am Turkish, non-religious etc.

UKIP are a shower of racist twats.

They are not doing it because they care about women's rights or whatever else anyone says to defend it, they are doing it because they like to oil the Islamapohobic machine.

Don't kid yourselves that UKIP give a shit about women's rights, least of all the rights of muslim women

Right so we assume for the purposes of argument that oppressive father/husband will only let woman out of the house/have a job/go to university on condition that she wears the burqa. Government bans burqa wearing in public- bingo! woman is liberated from paternal/marital oppression. Oh yeah

I get sick of policies like this.

They decide what wearing a burqa or other muslim beliefs mean to women, based on their beliefs, not those of the Muslim women.

I am not a muslim but I did live in Saudi Arabia for six years so know what it is like to live in a muslim society. I was also privileged to be invited to various family events in both Saudi and Indian muslim homes.

The women do not feel "marginalised" by wearing the burqa. It is what those women want.

Some women did, some women didn't it was their choice.

And from what I saw it was the women who wore the trousers in family homes over there.

The King's wife didnt take any shit from him, that's for sure.

Why don't they actually do some research and talk to muslim women before making such sweeping generalisations?

I for one, loved living in Saudi.

I couldn't drive: so what, a driver took me everywhere, waited for me, carried my shopping, and drove me home again.

I had to wear an ababya and headscarf: great, no more bad hair days.

Had to eat in certain sections of restaurants: fabulous, no groups of louts leering at girls in mini skirts.

UKIP should all concentrate on something worthy of news inches, not this.

I object to the cultural rejectionism that covering the face represents. In our culture in the UK, covering the face has traditionally been associated with hiding identity and is therefore a negative thing. Many of us find it offensive.

We are a liberal society and permit freedom of expression, religion, association etc but I am offended that the very freedoms which presumably attracted immigrants to this country are then abused in this way. The same goes for not gaining a passing familiarity with the English language, and I speak as a grand-daughter of immigrants whose grandmother never learned English.

A Muslim friend of mine once told me that to give offence to another person's culture in their own country (ie where you are a guest) is un-Islamic, and in any case veiling is an Arab tradition rather than Islamic requirement.

Don't get me wrong - I am in favour of immigration and happy to see other cultural influences adopted into our society (think chicken tikka masala!) but covering the face is so against our cultural norms that I am increasingly offended by it, especially since where I live it seems to be a growing phenomenon.