Burkas

Well, quite Bob.

It is illiberal and it is over-prescriptive regulation. It\’s also profoundly un-British to try and regulate how people dress. And I\’m agin\’ it.

18 thoughts on “Burkas”

  1. XX It’s also profoundly un-British to try and regulate how people dress. And I’m agin’ it. XX

    You ever tried getting intop 90% of British pubs or clubs in bike leathers?

    Tim adds: Some decades since I went clubbing but I was rather under the impression that at times bike leathers are compulsory ….

  2. Oddly, a reason for a “burka ban” might very well be a deliberate (though unstated) policy in favor of freedom (of Muslim women) from restrictive oversight of their “morals” by self-appointed (male) guardians of the faith. There was a similar motive behind a French ban (on wearing headscarves, either generally or in school–I forget); in that case, young male thugs targeted non-scarved girls for harrassment (and sexual molestation), pretending to be guardians of morality.

    In those places where Muslim populations abut others, greater freedom in dress of non-Muslims is repeatedly cited as evidence of loose morals and as a pretext to molestation and rape (as well as an exoneration of such behavior).

    I don’t much like laws prescribing dress, either. But, if you Brits don’t do something about it, the practice will grow, with even non-Muslim gals in some areas adopting “protective” coloration. I’d even expect Muslims to ease up a bit on the requirement–perhaps in favor of another symbol–maybe a headscarf–of what it’s all really about: recognition and acceptance of inferior status (dhimmitude for non-Muslims, etc.).

    It’s a Blitz of another sort and ought to evoke the same sort of response. Otherwise, the sun will surely set–for good.

  3. “You ever tried getting intop 90% of British pubs or clubs in bike leathers?”

    Owners of private premises should have the right to enforce whatever conditions they wish (such as permitting their patrons to smoke, f’rinstance). The state has no such right.

    “Oddly, a reason for a ‘burka ban’ might very well be a deliberate (though unstated) policy in favor of freedom (of Muslim women) from restrictive oversight of their ‘morals’ by self-appointed (male) guardians of the faith”

    That’s quite true, and, on the face of it, a laudable aim, but if these oppressed Muslim women wish to be free of such restrictive oversight, they have other means of achieving that freedom. Those women who have no objection to such oversight should not have it removed by the state.

  4. “… if these oppressed Muslim women wish to be free of such restrictive oversight, they have other means of achieving that freedom.”

    Like what?

  5. Never mind the leathers- what about the helmet? Leathers are optional- helmets are not, and you can’t pay for your petrol without removing them.
    And if we are prepared to enforce the wearing of a helmets- as we have for fifty years -then enforced dress codes are an established British institution.
    But rather than ban the burqa- how about demanding a visible face- that is in fact what we want?

  6. John,

    School and workplace uniforms are only required when people are at school or work, ie representing the organisation whose unifrom they wear. Nobody thinks it would be okay for a board of school governors or police authority to dictate what coppers or pupils wear off duty.

  7. John Malpas: “Like what?”

    What would you do if your partner said that you couldn’t leave the house unless you were wearing a pink woolly hat?

  8. “And if we are prepared to enforce the wearing of a helmets- as we have for fifty years -then enforced dress codes are an established British institution.”

    Firstly, we haven’t had a compulsory helmet law for 50 years (only since 1973).

    Secondly, it’s not required to wear it all the time including indoors (the UKIP ban would apply indoors).

    Thirdly, I disagree with the helmet law anyway on similar grounds to opposing the ban.

    Fourthly, that law in any case made reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs, something UKIP doesn’t see fit to do.

  9. “What would you do if your partner said that you couldn’t leave the house unless you were wearing a pink woolly hat?”

    Campaign for a law banning pink woolly hats?

  10. As with all these things there might be unintended consequences. If women can no longer wear the burqa in public then there menfolk might not allow them out of the house. I know the ban is intended to be indoors as well but does anyone seriously think the Police are going to enforce that.

  11. The law (1936 Public Order Act) proscribes wearing uniforms on demos,even uniform berets.Before the legislation,political uniforms were seen as” Un-British”. So there has not been a liberal approach to dress for some time.

  12. I know the ban is intended to be indoors as well but does anyone seriously think the Police are going to enforce that.

    Going by past evidence I’d say “yes, they do”. It sounds like an easy way to meet Home Office norms with alot less efffort than it takes to chase real villains.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *