This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Champion of UK burka ban declares war on veil-wearing constituentsd

Champion of UK burka ban declares war on veil-wearing constituentsd - Comments

mmurray's Avatar Comment 1 by mmurray

I would take the view that she could see my face, I could not see hers, I am not able to satisfy myself she is who she says she is.

Does he really normally want photo id from constituents ?

Seventy-five per cent of the usual communication between two human beings is done with personal experience. God gave us faces to be expressive. It is not just the words we utter but whether we are smiling, sad, angry or frustrated. You don't get any of that if your face is covered.

Good to see someone making a stand against those new-fangled telephone things. I never liked them.

Michael

PS: Why do pasted quotes always end up with short lines with gaps between them ? Can that be fixed ?

Updated: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:06:54 UTC | #489466

DavidSJA's Avatar Comment 2 by DavidSJA

Wow! Apparently, God gave us these faces. So his reaction isn't at all predicated on his own religious belief, and therefore isn't religiously-inspired at all...

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:23:37 UTC | #489469

besleybean's Avatar Comment 3 by besleybean

I know this thread is specifically about an individual and his view of veiled women. But I would hate for any female constituent of his, not to receive the necessary help, because of his stand. I do find the issue of banning the burka difficult. I disagree with women being veiled. But do we counter this by attacking the victim? Do we really start people what they can and cannot wear? Are we in danger of imprisoning women in their homes? On other burka threads, I have argued for a specific offence of ' oppression of women and young girls.' I am trying to think if there is anything else we can do.
Education clearly. This must start on admission to the country. Leaflets in various languages, explaining why the veil is not acceptable in the Uk(for instance.) This education possibly continuing in citizenship lessons in school.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:33:13 UTC | #489472

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 4 by Stafford Gordon

Please! "When in Rome do as Rome does." ; it's not that difficult to remember. Seven words, one of which is repeated.

Interesting that Scholars debate which part of a woman's body should be covered, and disagree on the pressing subject; are any of these Scholars female I wonder?

This, it seems to me, is a perfect example of how religion can engender arrested development.

Were I in this MP's position, I would have at hand a black sack, which, should the request to remove the veil be denied, I would swiftly don upon my bonce. There would be, of course, out of simple courtesy, holes for my peepers.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:50:21 UTC | #489475

besleybean's Avatar Comment 5 by besleybean

But why should Rome mean the same to everybody? As far as I am concerned these women are ignorant at best or victims at worst. They need help. If we don't permit them to be veiled, there men may not allow them out at all. A woman visiting her MP may be in desperate need of help.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:56:47 UTC | #489477

Nastika's Avatar Comment 6 by Nastika

Here's what's happened in France:

The Independent - 17th July 2010

Under the law approved by the National Assembly this week, anyone wearing a face mask, with a few stated exceptions, can be fined €150 (£130) or sent on a "citizenship" course. Anyone forcing a woman to wear a full-face veil can be fined €30,000 or jailed for a year.

Exceptions are allowed for motor-cyclists and carnival-goers, and for sportspeople such as fencers and skiers.

I've been unable to find a copy of Philip Hollobone's Bill to see if it has a similar focus on the perpetrators.

@besleybean - what's your opinion of the French legislation?

@mmurray - to avoid gaps just put a single ">" before the quoted text.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:13:49 UTC | #489486

MickeyDroy's Avatar Comment 7 by MickeyDroy

I can't see this as an issue for atheists. Just for narrow minded bigots. Glad to see the idea doesn't get much support here.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:24:51 UTC | #489488

unsatura's Avatar Comment 8 by unsatura

Why is it not a ban on any face covering apparel in public, but just the burka? Following the logic through, Hollbone should communicate with mail with everyone who would not show his/her face infront of him. Let's start having drag queens in burka in pride parades if it should not be banned. Maybe that would take the heat of muslim women but enliven the debate.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:28:22 UTC | #489489

keddaw's Avatar Comment 9 by keddaw

@besleybean

I disagree with women being veiled.

Absolutely, but I also disagree with someone saying women can't wear a veil. That would shake up traditional marriage ceremonies... :)

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:42:02 UTC | #489490

donttellhimpike's Avatar Comment 10 by donttellhimpike

I've started to consider a full face covering a judgment on me - in the sense that there's a view held by the male guardians (owners) of these women that there's no way I could possibly control my rapist instincts were I to glimpse a woman's chin, cheeks, nose, lips, teeth etc.

This judgment on me is extremely irksome but I am still uncomfortable with a ban on clothing (symptom) rather than a ban on the subjugation of women based on patriarchal cultural or religious nonsense (cause). Still I do like the considerable fine imposed on male suppressors and I'm looking forward to the test case.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:48:46 UTC | #489491

mjwemdee's Avatar Comment 11 by mjwemdee

I agree. These women are victims and should be helped to see what tradition, faith and culture has done to them. Not an easy task.

I don't entirely disagree with what this Kettering guy is trying to say, but his arguments aren't quite good enough. And the article then shifting its attention to the question of Turkey's integration into the EU doesn't help.

As for: 'God gave us faces to be expressive' ...ouch!

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:54:48 UTC | #489493

mmurray's Avatar Comment 12 by mmurray

Comment 6 by Nastika :

@mmurray - to avoid gaps just put a single ">" before the quoted text.

Thanks but I am. It only seems to be when I paste text, select and then press the double quotes button. I notice other people having this problem as well. It's OK when I quote a comment and then edit it.

Michael

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:06:07 UTC | #489496

mmurray's Avatar Comment 13 by mmurray

Comment 7 by MickeyDroy :

I can't see this as an issue for atheists.

Just for narrow minded bigots.

Glad to see the idea doesn't get much support here.

Not entirely true. See the discussion here.

Michael

Updated: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:11:42 UTC | #489497

besleybean's Avatar Comment 14 by besleybean

Nastika, I remain uncertain about any ban and wonder if there is a better way? Keddaw, one of my concerns about veil bans, is the freedom of choice aspect. But I should tell you. Don't even start me on weddings, you wouldn't want to hear what I think about them!

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:48:58 UTC | #489504

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 15 by Adrian Bartholomew

The single tool we have in dealing with things like the Burka is to make it socially unacceptable (I am not talking about a legal ban here) to wear one. Do we refuse to even do that? I may add that Muslim women do have minds of their own and many choose to wear these clothes not as a result of threats of violence or any significant male coercion at all but as an expression of their dedication to their faith.

I was sort of with this MP. Shame he muddied the water with talk about God, legal bans and Turkey. I wouldn't do anything like he said myself though. I'm too nice :-)

Updated: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:17:02 UTC | #489511

Wuht2Ask's Avatar Comment 16 by Wuht2Ask

Comment Removed by Author

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:17:45 UTC | #489512

sandman67's Avatar Comment 17 by sandman67

As an old school socialist this Con muppet would not normally gain any sympathy or support from me, but I say Good On You Sir!

I want to see religion in all forms rolled back from influence in the UK. The start point should and must be extremism, so we chase the creationists out of our schools, and the Islamic fundys off our streets for good. No more bearded barbarians at Parliaments gates screaming hate and demanding their own legal system, no more walking tents in the high street.

We have tried the velvet glove of reason, and that has failed, as it was always doomed to. You dont reason with mad dogs. Now I suggest its time to employ the iron fist of law. Assimilate or leave. The practices of a backwards religion that segregates one half of the population and makes them secon class citizens has NO place in the UK of 2010.

Attempting to act through reason plays directly into their hands, and they do love the way they can tie bleeding heart liberals in knots using the very laws and converntions they seek to overturn. In the US the creationists and dominionists abuse the Constitution, in the UK the Islamists just abuse our legal framework and play on your sense of "fair play". Common tactics, common strategy.... a theocracy or virtual theocracy.

And if expressing the se views makes me a bigot, a racist or a facist the so be it. Ive had enough. Ive been called worse by better men, and sticks n stones.....

One last point.... the "god gave you a face" refernce is a language meme the same as "god gave you feet so start walking" or "Thank god for that".

Its a language issue, and one worthy of proper debate: How do we de-faith our language?

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:30:23 UTC | #489516

Serdan's Avatar Comment 18 by Serdan

Comment 3 by besleybean :

I know this thread is specifically about an individual and his view of veiled women. But I would hate for any female constituent of his, not to receive the necessary help, because of his stand.

They can just reveal their faces. Problem solved.

I do find the issue of banning the burka difficult.

I don't. The burqa is an expression of fundamentalist Islam. It is an expression of the complete subjugation of women and should not be tolerated.
A simple scarf is another matter entirely.

But do we counter this by attacking the victim?

I'm willing to bet that the women in question are often just as much oppressing themselves. Forcing them to participate in society on a fundamental level can only be a good thing.

Do we really start people what they can and cannot wear?

We already do that.

Are we in danger of imprisoning women in their homes?

No. What do you think is more likely: That the husband will let his wife leave the home unveiled or that he will do the groceries himself?

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:44:05 UTC | #489518

godsbelow's Avatar Comment 19 by godsbelow

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of banning specific pieces of clothing, as, it seems, many others here are.

However, I do think that the governments of free countries have a duty to denounce symbols of discrimination and oppression, such as the niqab and burka. Rather than banning them outright, shouldn't government prohibit them from publicly-owned and government buildings, in the same way they might prohibit displays of other sexist or racist material? It would be a mark of solidarity with those women who are oppressed by Islam, without resorting to a public ban that would see police fining people for what they wear.

Might that not be a better way for governments to send a message about Islamic sexism?

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:46:21 UTC | #489520

Wuht2Ask's Avatar Comment 20 by Wuht2Ask

Comment Removed by Author

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:18:42 UTC | #489525

mmurray's Avatar Comment 21 by mmurray

Comment 20 by Wuht2Ask :

Recently I was watching muslim hate marches, excuse me, rights marches. Many of the peaceful assumed male decriers for justice had their faces covered. What is that all about? Were they joining the ladies demanding outerwear freedom?

Most likely suffering some (probably justified) paranoia over Special Branch or MI? or worse photographing them.

Michael

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:31:56 UTC | #489530

mmurray's Avatar Comment 22 by mmurray

Comment 15 by Adrian Bartholomew :

I was sort of with this MP. Shame he muddied the water with talk about God, legal bans and Turkey. I wouldn't do anything like he said myself though. I'm too nice :-)

According to this editorial Jack Straw in the previous government had already done this. Do you know anything about that ?

Michael

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:35:44 UTC | #489531

AfraidToDie's Avatar Comment 23 by AfraidToDie

We recently had a Florida doctor posting a sign not wanting to accept patients who sided or voted for O’bama because of the health-care issue. The obvious problem most everyone had with this is that doctors should not refuse treatment for any such political reason, and in my opinion for any religious reason, which I feel this falls under. Although I am very much against women having to wear burka’s, and although I think it is absolutely a ridiculous thing to wear, I don’t think we should be legislating the banning of them in public. On the other hand, I think there are specific instances they should be required to remove the face covering, such as when pulled over by police and other instances when identification is required.

Now for the sick humor that comes to mind with this issue… I can hear the doctor saying “you can leave the face cover on, but get up on the table and spread your legs”. Sorry, couldn’t help myself! Also, the eyes that are shown with that article are so sexy looking from this male’s point of view. It makes me want to see her body even more. I can’t help but believe most men would feel the same way, and I have to ask if there are any women that feel the same curiosity? Beyond the obvious sexual connotations of this, perhaps it is just human nature to want to expose that which is hidden or forbidden?

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:35:54 UTC | #489532

besleybean's Avatar Comment 24 by besleybean

Sorry, Wuht, wasn't entirely certain who you were talking about there. There are certainly many issues regarding face covering,but I still have concerns regarding some bans. Serdan, obviously you know different muslim families than I do. In these, the men certainly ,do all the shopping, the women are not allowed out of the house to do so. Now I know this could kind of be seen as shooting myself in the foot. But I am presuming there are other families where the women are allowed to leave, if they cover to do so. We all know there are acid throwings and honour killings. But even on a less extreme level, it is very difficult for an oppressed woman to face being banished from her family, home and community. If a veiled woman could be educated, she of her own accord realise there is no need to cover.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:36:58 UTC | #489533

seals's Avatar Comment 25 by seals

So, we are informed, the burqa and niqab are imposed on women to protect men from distracting temptation and lustful thoughts about women other than their own spouse. Shouldn't older women past the full flush of their youth be excused from wearing it in that case? Are muslim males incapable of preventing themselves from lusting after old women? Something fishy is going on here.

Why does the photo of a woman wearing the niqab, as so many others do, show her with eyes made up to the nines including in this case what looks like false lashes and kohl eyeliner. Surely this belies the whole notion of modest apparel? Wouldn't it be just as effective if not moreso to go out in baggy clothing and a scarf, without any makeup whatsoever. This also points to the underlying reason for attachment to the repressive forms of coverup being a demonstration of separatism and attention seeking, nothing to do with modesty.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:45:30 UTC | #489535

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 26 by Adrian Bartholomew

Comment 22 by mmurray :

According to this editorial Jack Straw in the previous government had already done this. Do you know anything about that ?

Michael

I think he just said he would prefer his constituents remove the veil when they met him and the fuss that kicked up was silly and so he just shut up about it rather than make the furor worse. I'd be happy to be corrected if my memory is deficient.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:52:25 UTC | #489536

EvN's Avatar Comment 27 by EvN

I cannot enter the premises of the local bank with a motorcycle helmet obscuring my face. The reason is simple: the bank needs to see may face to ensure that I am who I say I am by comparing my face with the photograph in my identity book. This goes for the local municipal offices etc. If I testify in court (or find myself in the dock), the court needs to see my face.

The same should go for all face coverings including burkas, hoodies and masks.

Where identity is important, face coverings are not appropriate. If I, however, want to cover my face in a place where identification is not an issue, I should be free to do so (and suffer the consequences).

This very simple issue is being used by extremists on all sides to push their own agendas. There is, imho, very little to discuss.

How sensible people can suggest that "banning the burka", which is in essence "banning face coverings when identity verification is an issue", amounts to discrimination, is beyond me.

Discrimination takes place when a group of people are treated differently (worse) to any other group of people (I paraphrase). The aim should be to treat everybody the same by insisting that nobody cover their faces.

So what is the damn issue? Muslims (or bikers) should not expect (or enjoy) special treatment. (I know, I know ...)

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:59:41 UTC | #489538

friendlypig's Avatar Comment 28 by friendlypig

You have to be careful with the context, and the setting. If I go hiking in winter I wear a balaclava which may be full-face. Whilst I agree with the Hon. gentleman it would have to be carefully worded.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:08:43 UTC | #489541

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 29 by Roger J. Stanyard

There's a damn good reason why this MP should refuse to deal with people wearing burkas. A couple of months back there was a murder attempt on the Labour MP Stephen Timms by a woman dressed in a burka.

The burka is a very good method of concealing weapons and bombs and hiding the identity of the wearer.

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:15:31 UTC | #489542

mmurray's Avatar Comment 30 by mmurray

Thanks Adrian

Michael

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:26:54 UTC | #489548