Ban the Burka..

People must quite definitely be allowed to wear whatever they want to, in the privacy of their own home, but out in public, the wearing of any sort of bag with eyeholes over the head, be it paper or cloth, plastic or metal, is not acceptable, it's problematic and anti-social, and used for committing crimes of one kind and another.

I totally agree Cyfrifia....France doesn't have this problem!

100% agree Cyfrifia, about time we stopped being so soft in this country, in this and other ways!

Nobody coming on to here to protest about the comments made by the posters about the Burka. No one coming on accusing them of being racist? Frightening. 

Wearing of the burkha is not exactly a race issue, as it is traditional wear of several different 'races' in various countries. More of a religious issue. Apparently such covering of the face is a widespread and ancient custom, pre-dating and adopted by Islam, but such history is obscured by the mists of time.

Just because a custom is ancient and foreign does not mean it is a good thing for today, like the ancient Chinese practice of foot binding, or the ancient Greek custom of leaving babies alone in wild places to see if they would survive. Many ancient societies depended on slavery. But, the question is about our society today.

The majority of Muslims in Europe do not wear or particularly approve of the wearing of the burkha, and whether it is a truly Islamic thing to do, or just an ancient custom, is an open question.

What does the burkha mean? For someone to retreat from, and hide from, the world behind all enveloping layers of cloth, to hide themselves and remove their identity from this world, and retreat into a religious state of mind and being.

People must always be allowed to practice their religion, but not in opposition to and at the expense of disrupting the society they live in. Traditionally, those who retire from the world into a religious life have gone into monasteries and nunneries, or other closed or semi-closed arrangements.

It is impractical in the society we live in to have anonymous, hooded, faceless, covered figures walking around, and has proved a convenient disguise for criminals and terrorists to operate. It's important not to be repressive of anyones freedom to act and live in a 'different' way, so some sort of balance and accommodation has to be reached.

France has brought in a ban on the burkha, with a fine for wearing one in public. This seems a reasonable compromise, similar to a parking or speeding or littering fine, discouraging something without going over the top.

The British way is to be tolerant, to a point, and we have been tolerant of the burkha, to the point now where it has proved to be a problematic and disturbing thing. It isn't right to prevent someone from expressing and living their religious belief, conviction or instinct, so, if people want to wear the burkha or do similarly strange religious things like living in a barrel or chanting continuously, let them do it, but in private, and not in a way that disturbs society generally.

There was violence recently in Trappes, a suburb of Paris, a confused situation. Central Paris feels surrounded and threatened by problem suburbs, where a lot of Islamic communities live. This has been escalating for many years, and may be why France is keen to pass on refugees from Afghanistan etc to the UK, but, whether the burkha ban is cause or a symptom of that is debateable.

Something here like Hinch outlines, a practical compromise, needs to work so that anyone in a burkha can expect to be stopped and made to uncover and identify themself in many situations, especially if there is anything iffy going on, like terrorist suspects around, or a group of rather burly burkha wearers striding towards a jewellery shop.

Airports, law courts, hospitals, shops, you can see how almost any public space will have a problem to some extent with unidentifiable people.

We should also ban, then, all false beards, wigs and any other paraphernalia that could be used to change an appearance.

So now the discussion has moved onto health not security issues?
I thought we were discussing the potential for a fugitive to evade the police by changing their appearance, in order to fool them?
I don't care about what happens in 'Muslim' countries. I care about the freedoms we have in this country and people's freedom, within certain boundaries, to choose what they wear without the state dictating to them what they should and shouldn't do? Is this not what we are remembering this coming Sunday, along with the sacrifices made to protect this freedom?

No Dalelad it is not or should I say not entirely. Remembrance Sunday was originally for the fallen of the First World War and has since been used to commemorate 'all' the fallen of wars/conflicts since. But I would take issue on the reasoning behind the First World War which had little to do with 'freedoms' and was more to protect rich men's wealth and influence - however - I digress from the point of your post. Freedoms have a price to pay and quite often it is the 'rights of freedoms' which suffer the most in order that a semblance/large margin of 'freedom' can still flourish. Hinch had it right. Wear a disguise if you wish but when asked to remove it for security reasons the law must insist that such is done without prejudice to either party. Society has the right to ask any individual, who it is perceived may pose a threat or endangerment or an act of falsehood, to prove otherwise which in this case is by simply removing/ casting aside a mask/covering of the face. It is ridiculous to make anything more than that of the question. As for religion. It doesn't even enter into the argument.

I agree with every word there Atlas

Old Regulator wrote:

teamplayer2 wrote:Nobody coming on to here to protest about the comments made by the posters about the Burka. No one coming on accusing them of being racist? Frightening.

What I find ‘frightening’ is uneducated comments directed at people exercising their right to comment or not comment on a topic.  

Your problem is Old Regulator!

It is patently obvious that the wearing of the Burka is not directly associated with race.  It is seen on white, Anglo-Saxon converts to a perverted strand of Islam as much as it is seen on Asian or African adherents.

Now let's be clear, a Burka without a veil is much the same as a nun's habit... do we ban these also?

I think not.

We condemn those who impose repressive dress on anyone for reasons of religion, but we have equally to allow freedom of religious opression.  Outright bans are always bad - what next, turbans, wimples, surplices?

johnb wrote: freedom of religious opression

Nuns don't cover their faces, turbans look quite smart and are best worn above the face, on top of the head is ideal. The wimple problem could be dealt with by the House of Lords, which just leaves the army surplus balaclavas to think about.

The nuns habit does NOT cover all the face apart from the eyes.....for goodness sake!!  Now you are being ridiculous Johnb

Johnb is talking about a burka without a face covering, perhaps he means a headscarf?

It does get a confusing with all the different regional names for the different types of niquabs and veils and burkas and so on.

The burka that causes the identity problem is the burka that covers face and body completely with either a slit for the eyes or a bit of cloth mesh to look out through.

A definite stunner. With all those clever arab mathematicians and clever Islamic scientists, it's surprising they haven't come up with a high-tech 'cloak of invisibity'.


The japanese are working on it, do they allow burkas in Japan? I suppose a few burka clad people in a sea of Japanese people isn't a problem, as they would have a good idea who is who, it's more when you get a lot of people in burkas it becomes problematic.

The Burka is the black enveloping floor to head covering which is much like a vry long duffel coat. it need not cover the face. The Niqab is the veil with the slit.

we should call things by their proper names if we wish to be understood, for in that context, a burka without a veil is exactly analogous to a nun's habit.

Ideas about bans on winkle-pickers, stiletto shoes, flip-flops, platform shoes, white socks, drainpipe trousers, flares, jeans, long hair, short hair, greasy hair, topless dresses, see-through blouses, facial piercings, and mini-skirts are perhaps the rather different and shallow concerns of yesteryear.

Today's burka ban in France and unease about the burka in the UK may logically be about identity, but is there something deeper to it ?

In his latest letter from Parliament, M.P. Simon Danczuk, with his wider view of events, remarks that Russell Brand the "drug addled comedian" is attracting a lot of political attention, and he (Simon), perhaps surprisingly agrees with Brand that "democracy is in crisis" and that if we are not careful we will end up with "a dictatorship".

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/83570/letter-from-parliament-simon-danczuk-mp

With the recent collapse in the world banking system, European and USA economies in crisis, withdrawal from fighting the Taliban, increase in terrorism, changes in the balances of power etc, perhaps the apprehension of collapse, as in Greece etc, and dictatorship arising, is a reasonable one, and, behind unease about the rise of Islam, which we may associate with dictatorial political systems, so the visible take-over of public space with things like wearing the burka instinctively makes people uneasy for that reason, as well as the concerns about crime, disguise, and identity?