Ban the Burka? Q to Kier Starmer today-is this a good idea or not?

[happydappy2]

I know dictating to women what they can or can't wear is not popular amongst feminists. But is stating that they cannot cover their face a bad thing? There are many situations where faces have to be visible for security, ie in a bank you cannot wear a motorcycle helmet. I know some people will say if certain women cannot wear a burka they will not be able to leave their home....but isn't it better that women can just live their lives in the same way as men do, ie faces uncovered? Interested to hear others views. Personally having lived in Saudi Arabia I respected their customs when in their country but feel the UK should also be able to say, in our country, women can show their faces.

I didn't think this country's values included telling women what they can and can't wear.

Completely agree @flyingbuttress43

No I don't, I also have zero budget for translation services but there are many free services which we use which are adequate. I understand what the NHS does, but I also think that there is an onus to make the service provided accessible for all patients whether due to language barriers or disability. If noone is exploring the free resources that are available then I'd suggest not enough is being done.

I don't suppose this is a good place to note that if you don't understand, you can't consent ?

@SerendipityJane My auntie went on holiday to Italy with 3 "old" school pals, They went to a restaurant and unfortunately she got a fish-bone stuck in her throat and had to go to hospital
Fortunately one of the 3 pals spoke fluent Italian and was able to explain to her what the medical staff wanted her to do and what was happening.
They could have provided a translator but there was a cost implication.
This was pre-Brexit, so, so much for being in the EU.

Our NHS spends approx £113 billion on translators because some people don't want to integrate and can't be bothered to learn English when they come here.
The taxpayer picks up the tab and that money could otherwise pay for more clinical staff.

That would be my concern,

It's not sufficient to obtain consent - it must be informed consent.

Unless it costs too much, I suppose.

A number of Moslem countries have banned the burqa and niqab on security and other grounds Somalia, Bosnia, Tunisia and others.

@Lavender14 I also think that there is an onus to make the service provided accessible for all patients whether due to language barriers or disability.

If patients have a disability then this is not their fault and they should not be marginalised because of it. However, there are some exceptions *

However, if people are too lazy to learn English I don't see why the UK taxpayer should accommodate their failure to integrate.

*Nowadays applications for treatment include a questionaire to ascertain if the prospective patient needs a bariatric chair/bed because we have an obesity epidemic.

If informed consent cannot be obtained (for whatever reason) then the procedure/examination doesn't take place.
If it did it would constitute an assault, and there would always be some dodgy Human Rights lawyer waiting in the wings to sue.

If patients have a disability then this is not their fault and they should not be marginalised because of it. However, there are some exceptions *

In my experience, there are few exceptions and provision for the less able in the NHS is pisspoor (when it's there).

I have a wheelchair bound friend. Whenever they receive an appointment (and they have complex needs) I always check (and that's an epic adventure in itself) that the facility is aware not only they they use a wheelchair, but that they cannot get out of it. Not that it makes much difference. We've been told all is OK, get there and ... (well you can guess the rest).

This is after attending 3 appointments in a row that were wasted as the clinics had no way of moving someone from a wheelchair to a bed.

And she speaks English fluently.

Still. when they pare back the money for the disabled, the transport costs will probably prevent going to appointments at all. So that'll up the NHS stats. Every cloud and all that.

All a bit woke, no ?

I don't know whether it's "woke" or not but those are the standards that healthcare workers follow nowadays.
It's called "defensible documentation".

I didn't think this country's values included telling women what they can and can't wear
So how do we make sure that Muslim men and Imams, community leaders etc stop doing it.

They aren't the state.

(Yet)

Good question.

Its interesting that you'd describe someone fleeing persecution to a foreign country as lazy for not having miraculously learnt that language to fluency ahead of fleeing. He majority of immigrants do make effort to learn English. Infact most of the young people I've worked with spoke multiple languages depending on what countries they'd been to before ending up in the UK where they were all making concerted efforts to learn English. Which as you'd expect doesn't happen overnight.

I'm also really curious as to how you'd expect a victim of human trafficking to have accessed English lessons along the way? Or do we just deny them healthcare until they stop being "lazy".

Plus informed consent is always going to be within reason. As a person who is not medically trained there will always be a limitation on how much I am informed on any procedure or treatment. If a Dr or any other professional has utilised reasonable means to secure informed consent such as using translation services (as do every other legal/ trust based service) then they've fulfilled their obligation. I'd certainly see that as more realistic than using a child.

@serendipityjane that's disgraceful that your friend has received such appalling treatment. However suggesting that as a reason not to strive for better is just creating a race to the bottom.

@Lavender14 "He majority of immigrants do make effort to learn English. Infact most of the young people I've worked with spoke multiple languages depending on what countries they'd been to before ending up in the UK "

You say "ending up in UK" as if they had no agency in the matter and were somehow levitated here.
Why did they not stop in the first safe country they came to?
Between April 2024 and Match 2025, six in ten of small boat arrivals were from just five nationalities: Afghan (15%), Syrian (11%), Eritrean (11%), Iranian (11%), and Sudanese (8%).
Are you trying to tell us that all these fit healthy young men who are crossing the channel in boats are "fleeing war and persecution" because I would called bullshit on that one.
They are economic migrants who want to sponge off the UK. The minute they get here most disappear into the "Black Economy" and contribute nothing to our economy.
There are multiple safe countries in Europe between those areas and UK.
They headed for UK because they were chancers who wanted to avail themselves of our benefits.

We are going to agree to disagree because that's not the experience I've had with the real life people I know who've actually made that journey. Out of curiosity how many do you actually know in real life?

There are plenty of valid reasons why people continue on to the UK and why other 'safe' countries are not as 'safe' as you seem to think. For example would you feel safe to settle in a country that practiced illegal pushbacks and risked your life at point of landing? Would you be happy raising your children in slum-like accommodation? Would you try to get to somewhere that you knew other people? What if you'd made an agreement with your loved ones that you'd try to get somewhere and then lost all contact with them through war or were seperated on the journey? Would you still try to get there or just say "oh well". There's something really insidious about the idea that asylum seekers or refugees should be grateful for whatever they get no matter how shit it is as if they are not equal human beings and deserving to have some element of choice. It's so funny to me that people expect asylum seekering people to make these choices that they probably wouldn't make themselves.

I'd also suggest that if you knew the real extent of the horror of those journeys you'd know its not something anyone undertakes for simple benefits. Plus, they are entitled to minimal benefits, certainly not the same amount as your average citizen. We also refuse them from working when that's all the majority want to do, we drag the asylum process out for years in a really hostile way and then we criticise them for relying on benefits while they wait. But it's much more convenient to blame them than it is to blame a ridiculously inefficient system though isn't it.

Living in this country is a privilege not a right.

There's something really insidious about the idea that asylum seekers or refugees should be grateful for whatever they get no matter how shit it is as if they are not equal human beings and deserving to have some element of choice.

The world is full of people living in appalling conditions under despotic regimes but we cannot help them all or bring them all here.

I'd also suggest that if you knew the real extent of the horror of those journeys you'd know its not something anyone undertakes for simple benefits

They can't be that "horrible" or they wouldn't keep coming.

And "simple benefits"? - rubbish !
These people get put in a warm hotel, free bed and board, free medical & dental care and spending money, while our pensioners struggle to heat their homes.
Where I live you can't get an NHS dentist or a doctors appointment for love nor money but those that rock up on boats get it all 'on tap'.

So yes, they should be grateful and contribute to the economy of the country that's taken them in; instead of sponging off it's citizens.

"Living in this country is a privilege not a right"

Actually the right to seek asylum is a human right so yes they do have a right to seek asylum here. Not to mention that many of the countries people flee here from are unstable due to UK interference for money. The UK has contributed hugely over the years to people needing to seek asylum and immigrate, right back as far as the 'famine' in Ireland or the shipping of 'undesirables' to Australia. But God forbid we take responsibility and clean up our own mess.

"They can't be that "horrible" or they wouldn't keep coming." This statement tells me straight away you know nothing of the journey and have probably never known someone who's done it on a personal level. Which is amazing given its all over the news how many people are killed enroute or trafficked and sold into slavery or abused. I suggest you educate yourself from other avenues than right wing or anti immigration propaganda.

Any homeless person in the UK with complex circumstances is offered a warm hotel with free bed and board. Most of the asylum seekers I work with are put into hostel accommodation like any other homeless person at 18. So I wouldn't say they're being handed anything that other people are not able to access. And I don't just work with asylum seekers so I'd know if there was a discrepancy. Only difference is they receive less in benefits. Many also are simply unable to access school places or dentist/gp so I'd seriously reconsider your sources. I'd also gently remind you that difficulty in access to services is the result of intentional and chronic underfunding of the NHS for many years, and well before people realised the impact and a scapegoat was needed. Which is ironic given that our NHS depends on immigration for the workforce.

"So yes, they should be grateful and contribute to the economy of the country that's taken them in; instead of sponging off it's citizens."

How exactly do you propose they do that when they are not allowed to work by our system? I see no reason why people, once registered could not be employed. Plus as a taxpayer myself, I'm happy to see my taxes go to helping people who are in genuine need even if they aren't white or originally from the UK.

Also to try and.prevent.the.onward.march.of Islamist extremism. It never.seems to occur to people that moderate sane.Muslims do not favour extreme expressions of their faith such as the burka. Starmer & his ilk think they are upholding the principles of tolerance and diversity by not banning the burka but in fact they are failing to support the best practices of Islam.

@Lavender14 Any homeless person in the UK with complex circumstances is offered a warm hotel with free bed and board.

Are they?

' Infact most of the young people I've worked with spoke multiple languages depending on what countries they'd been to before ending up in the UK "

I'm also curious about this. It's hard enough to learn one language, never mind several, to the point of being able to being able to understand and communicate effectively. Are we still talking about refugees here? I'f so, how long did they spend in these other countries and under what circumstances , in order to be able to learn the language. And what made them leave those countries and come to this one. In your experience?

Headscarves and Hymens by Mona Eltahawy is a good read if anyone's interested.

https://bosphorusreview.com/review-headscarves-and-hymens

Edit-:typos

I'm also curious about this. It's hard enough to learn one language, never mind several

I live in a country where it’s common for people to speak 3 languages fluently and ‘only’ speaking 2 languages fluently is the basic norm. In fact at a recent grandchild’s graduation about 12 of the 65 students graduating stood up when asked if anyone spoke 4 languages and I suspect in countries like the UK the majority of people have absolutely no idea of just how many languages people outside of the UK can and actually do speak.