Ed Stourton asked for our views on the burqa. I didn’t know he cared, but now I do, here’s mine.
I hate the burqa because it tells me that the wearer hates me. On the other hand, it’s hilarious. I’m against banning it because using the law as a sticking plaster to cover a self-inflicted wound is too little too late.
Anyway, banning the burqa would give them yet another thing to gripe about. Better to simply stop pandering to an ideology that we should never have encouraged in the first place. Stop building special toilets and prayer rooms and don’t put up with ridiculous anti-human cultural practices.
It’s daft to argue that it’s liberating to be free to advertise your ideological opposition to liberty. Waving banners saying “down with democracy!” is as pointless as campaigning against campaigning.
The ‘liberal’ pro burqa argument, that it’s no different to a hoodie or a crash helmet, a balaclava or a disguise, skirts round the issue. What makes us uneasy isn’t really our concern that the woman might have been coerced. Nor is related to claims that strict modesty regulations aren’t a genuine requisite of the amorphous mystery that people call ‘true Islam,’ or the ‘real’, or the ‘continuity’ Islam I’ve just invented.
No it’s the simple fact that we don’t like anyone flaunting alien beliefs. We don’t like people wearing SS uniforms, specially Prince Harry. We don’t like it, but it’s not illegal. If I want to wear a burqa to a fancy dress party, let me, please.
There’s no law against parading around in jackboots and swastikas. A law’s unnecessary because Hitler’s ideology is considered unacceptable. If you do go round dressed as a Nazi you limit your credibility as a member of HRW or some such. If it took a whole new law to indicate that we see burqa wearing as a symbol of defiance and perfidiousness and that Britain disapproves, it would be more of a sadness than a triumph.
Tell Ed Stourton and the BBC to stop self-hating and resume normal service as soon as possible. Back to core values. Then it might not be necessary to resort to banning the burqa by law because people might just not want to wear the wretched garment.
Screw banning. I’d love a brief bill which says:
Any resident in the country has the right to deal with anyone whose face is covered. This Act supercedes all other equality and discrimination legislation.
That should be “refuse to deal”…
DOH
And the elephant in the room which never seems to get mentioned is that when women go to Mecca to do the Haj. They are forbidden from covering the face.
Very interesting Pounce. That is certainly something I was completely unaware of…
Liberal western philosophy introduced the ideas upon which we base the Civil Society.
I think that fundamental to this rational, civilized discourse the concept represents, is the idea that in public, our fellow citizens walk out in plain sight, and in full view.
WE do not hide our physical identity, because that is an affront to civilized society.
I don’t give a crap what an alien “culture” thinks are its “rights” in public. If they feel uncomfortable, then depart these shores for a culture that will accept THEM.
They are not the ones who decide the customs and norms of the Civil Society.
If people want to dress from head to foot in a black sheet in private — then go for it.
Just a quick follow up as to why so-many elites cannot fathom why “ordinary” people might diverge so wildly from their “expert” views which they seek to impose always..
The American Spectator has an interesting piece of analysis on the development of an elite, leftist, big state ruling class which trancends party.
It’s a lack of diversity of “thought”. The conclusions can be applied to what has happened to the polical parties, the media, the BBC, the so-called “intelligensia,” and academia in the UK.
America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution
Check it out:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the
All six pages of it! I read the first two.
MT — yes!
I urge all conservatives (not wet Tories) but actual John Locke,Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, civil society, capitalist conservatives, to read this and see how it resonates with our experience here.
Man are we in a pile of shit at least sixty years in the making.
Actually I would ban the burkha, I’d go further, I’d ban Mosques, I’d ban the sale of the vile Koran in shops, I’d ban effing bearded halfwits who come here from Muslim Countries who then preach hatred and death, I’d ban ANY public display of Islam.
In fact if I had my way I’d ban Islam completely from British society.
Can’t happen, and doesn’t need to. The best and only solution, really, is to make it so that the countries the problem cavemen come from are no longer such crapholes, and the benefits system isn’t a free ride for them, so that most of the ones in the UK leave of their own accord and the rest of them no longer feel like coming in.
When jobs started disappearing in certain areas, so did the Polish immigrants. When the Polish economy picked up, the Polish immigrants picked up and left for home. If the reasons the cavemen are in the UK disappear, they will, too.
“The best and only solution, really, is to make it so that the countries the problem cavemen come from are no longer such crapholes”
That is only possible by getting rid of Islam.
As for the Poles, they are still in the UK in large numbers and Polish food shops are opening left right and centre
“The best and only solution, really, is to make it so that the countries the problem cavemen come from are no longer such crapholes”
You mean like we TRIED to do in Afganistan and Iraq. That’s just their way of life, which they bring over here. Do any of these people that wear the Burkha have jobs? or do they live of our taxes?
I understand that political uniforms are illegal in the UK under the Public Order Act 1936. That law was passed to prevent the rise of Nazi fascism. So there is a precedent for banning certain items of clothing to protect freedom.
However, I would agree that an outright ban is undesirable and that if we weren’t ruled by self-hating lefties then it probably wouldn’t even be necessary.
The problem is if you don’t ban it then Muslims will simply keep chipping away at our laws and customs like they do now.
They are NOT interested in integration or adopting our values, they want Islam to dominate this nation. No one ever thought that sitting down with the Nazi’s and getting all cuddly with them would stop them doing what they did, all they understood was an iron fist.
An Avro Lancaster dumping 20,000lbs of bombs on a German city was a far better way of dealing with the Nazi’s than any piece of paper or ‘cultural understanding’.
Muslims only understand and respect one thing, strength. They despise weakness which is why they laugh at our western society.
They laugh at how we recoil in revolt at the idea of strapping bombs to a 8 year old child, to them a child is simply a tool of Islam to be used to spread the word of the Prophet, by dealing in death.
Many western nations (France, Holland and Switzerland) are finally waking up to this, but because we remain weak all that is going ot happen is even more Muslims will move here and THAT is a bad thing.
I have a great deal of sympathy with you, but an immediate moratorium on ALL pandering is a better remedy.
The BBC’s article says the ban is “un-British”, “We’re a tolerant and mutually respectful society,” and “how does it hurt anybody else if a woman chooses to wear a small piece of cloth across her face?”
It’s the kind of rubbish I hate. The burqa is more un-British than the ban. We’re tolerant, yes, far too ‘tolerant of the intolerant.’ As for ‘how does it hurt anybody else etc.’ It hurts me, and the person who said that must be aware that it’s offensive otherwise she wouldn’t have called a ridiculous menacing-looking shroud ‘a small piece of cloth.’
The Burkha represents the military arm of Islam for women. Would the wet media and politicla elite tolerate me wearing a white sheet over my body with holes for my eyes and then go walking around Hackney?
I think not, it would be seen as ‘stirring up race hate’ and rightfully I’d be dragged off the streets, so why are Muslim women allowed to do this?
No one ever thought that sitting down with the Nazi’s and getting all cuddly with them would stop them doing what they did
Except Neville Chamberlain and his piece of paper!
Remind me. How did that all work out again?
Well, it won’t be that far into the future when Islam taints everything – there’ll be an Islamic majority in the population, an Islamic government, burkas and mosques everywhere, and nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. Why? Because you allowed it to happen, that’s why.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
While good men do nothing venal self interest and weak appeasers do their work, the current regime no better than the last continues to sell out their own people and even their own f*cking futures and for what? The pathetic trappings of temporary power, the transient authority to destroy their own country for a warped political ideal long since proven poisonous?
Do the scum currently inhabiting the top positions actually believe that the islamists will reward them for betraying their own nation? Do these treacherous scum actually believe that the islamists will not destroy them last?
There is no tory party anymore that much is now obvious, you have a leadership that is no more tory than newlabour was socialist, wait for the change of branding soon.
It never fails to amaze me how the bBC will get into bed with anybody in which to substantiate their anti British stance. In the bBC article about how banning the Burka would be un-British they drag into the argument the new spokesman forMPACUK who conveniently happens to be a white woman, with an English name in which to bring some eye candy to their odious bigoted spiel. Here is what Catherine Heseltine had to say on the subject; “Britain is a free country. We value our freedoms and we don’t want MPs or the government telling British citizens what they can or can’t wear.How does it hurt anybody else if a woman chooses to wear a small piece of cloth across her face?”
Get that she doesn’t want anybody telling anybody else what they can or can’t wear. You’d think any half decent news agency would question that with “Well in Iran,Saudi Arabia, Parts of France and Bradford?” as well as questioning them with how their website promotes the vision that the Uk will be banning the Burka. An article posted today.
Now lets change the person in the spotlight and insert the BNP,EDL and any other right wing outfit where owning an extra chromosome is used as an ID card. Would the bBC have allowed them to get away with such rabble-rousing articles on their websites..
I think not.
These people never deal with the real issue. I said it in my post. Nobody wants to be told what they must wear, but we have to stop pretending that the burqa is a fashion statement. It’s a political symbol and they need to face it. Preferably without the veil.
Be very interesting to see young western women walk along Brick Lane is very short skirts and see what happens to them.
Let’s see if Muzzie’s are tolerant of them.
Of course they’re not. It’s only the British that are tolerant. Moslems don’t like tolerance.
It’s oxymoronic; more moronic than oxy.
Good God, not another UK hating Heseltine, one of them is too many. I do not like government intervention in general, it is invariably harmful, but I do think that for a group of people to deliberately hide their faces is suspicious. You cannot deal with a person whose face you cannot see, their feelings are hidden. Part of our tolerance is that his does not happen, we can see with whom we are dealing which is as it should be. So no ban but we can refuse to deal with anyone whose face we cannot see.
Well well well!
Syrian minister bans burqas in schools
Surely that must put an end to the cry of “banning the burqa is Islamophobic”.
Syria is run by the Alawite (Alawi) sect of Shia Islam. Many Muslims especially the Sunni majority (in Syria and worldwide) see the Alawites as heretics. The BBC is quite aware of this. Syria’s minority Alawites fear for future.
In the early 80s the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood rebelled in Syria, attempted to assassinate Assad Snr. and were put down with brutal force. It culminated in the 1982 massacre at Hama of between 7,000 to 40,000 people.
Assad and his Alawites may have more to fear from the Burqa than the French do.
BTW traditionally the Alawite women did not cover their faces.
Deegee,
Great post !
Even amongst the Alawis, Alevis in Turkish, there are schisms
( no pun intended ).
But, generally, they should be supported by the West. Not least, because their interpretation of the Koran includes tolerating drinking alcohol and allowing music for pleasure.
Burqas are not British and never have been – so telling people to not wear them is not un-British.
These people are deliberatly floating Britishness dressed like aliens and having no intention to integrate. They want to live in our country not because of its “liberal” society. They want nothing to do with Britain (except the benefits). A few years ago you did not see these women dressed for the desert in Newcastle, but now you would be hard pushed to miss them. I for one find it offensive and I do not want symbols of enemies of freedom paraded arounded the High Streets of Britain.
I’ve said it before. It’s good to see the burqa.A salutary reminder of just how alien the world view it represents is to Western culture. It puts to flight the liberal notion that by tolerating the intolerant the world will be a better place.
I really do think the liberal left is in a quandary over it. They can see the dangers of polarisation but have no idea how to stop this happening with out giving up their cherished beliefs.
I am sure that those Moslems who really do desire to be part of Western society can also see the perils but they too are trapped .
Sharia and the Western way can never co exist on equal terms. it is illogical and absurd to think otherwise. The burqa reminds us all of this truth.
Let them wear the burqa, theyre all feckin ugly anyway
There is no need to ban the burqa (although I think it is a laudable idea), but there is a way to effectively ban it without singling out Moslems. In the United States, in order to deal with the KKK, most places have laws banning the wearing of masks in public, with an exception made for Halloween and medical issues.
All you have to do is make it illegal for adults to be in public, except in the hospital, unless everyone can see their faces. Period.
Almost all petrol stations, banks, building societies, and a lot of shops too, operate a “no crash helmets” rule. Remove the helmet or you wont get served – or worse, you will not be allowed in the building. Likewise, plenty of shopping centers refuse kids wearing hoodies.
Banning the burqa wouldnt be singling anyone out – it would be levelling the playing field.
So far PC hasn’t made it illegal to serve people with covered faces, but it seems a law now says you can’t choose who stays at your B&B or hotel. We’re wobbling all over the place with our P.C. world.
Presumably P.C. is enough to stop shop workers from asking ladies to reveal their faces in shopping situations, but the MP who said he wouldn’t deal with a burqa wearer is within the law.
Caroline Spelman has said she thinks the burqa is empowering, and Nigel Farage has said he thinks it diminishes a woman’s life chances.
I don’t really care about the woman. It’s the people who have to see them and live amongst them that concern me.
The burqa wearer sends out a message which we’re at at the receiving end of. I don’t think we should make it illegal, but we should discourage it vigourously.
But what would happen to The Stig?
Bring back SUTTEE, swot I say!
Who are we to say what’s right and wrong!!
Ho hum.
A blanket ban on any form of mask or face covering is the way to go. That includes crash helmets, hoodies, burqas and kefiyyahs.
That would allow the police to photograph those who demonstrate on British streets bearing placards calling for the death of Jews and “Down With Democracy!”.
If you want the right to demonstrate publicly you must also respect the obligation, and have the courage to show your face.
It would also enable the police to arrest on sight any “anti-globalisation” vandal whose face is covered.
The British government and fellow travellers, writing the longest suicide note in history !
PS Is Caroline Spelman the most stupid person in government ?
Are most of you from some other planet?
Most Islamic forms of dress however much I may disagree with them personally, I allow because I have a belief in that Great British tradition of freedom.
However the Burqa and the Niqab intentionally hide the face, this is a challenge to freedom, no freedom for the women who have to wear it, no freedom for everyone else to be able to identify people for simple id purposes or in hte stopping of crime.
The Niqab and Burqa are fundamentally different from the other headdresses and cannot be allowed. They are the ones that not only should but must be banned. They are also the only ones that the Belgian and French laws outlaw.
The Niqab and Burka are fundamentally unBritish.
Too many of the new Condem government have gone native and are rushing to the left of NuLiebour, promise after promise are being wantonly abandoned immediately under the convenient excuse of the coalition and as new issues come up the wrong decisions are being made againa and again, frankly its dismaying and I fear for the future, the BBC must be laughing tough talk of cutting the BBC monolith back seems so much hot air, I will believe it being cut back when I see it.
This coalition is being used as a very convenient excuse for the ‘tory’ party isnt it?
Election promises? No No we simply cannot deliver any actual promises and have no intention of actually living upto the ideals of a right wing party, its the coalition you see we have to compromise for the sake of the nation blah blah blah(insert platitude by the ton).
The coalition is run along early newlabour lines, dog whistle throw the grassroots a bone via a stooge media, you know the old planted lines by now ‘the government plans this or that shiny new reform’ crows the daily wail but closer examination reveals it all to be a load of claptrap to ease the concerns of the grassroots for a while at least. Real labour grassroots had that for a decade and now the right wing are feeling the effects of the very same tricks.
Government by dog whistle stooge media and all the while creating an agenda 90% of the electorate would be enraged and sickened by if they knew.
The new regime has big plans and we aint gonna like them one bit so they hide it behind a fog of bullshit spread by their stooge media. The divergence of the electorate and the political class continues to widen at an alarming rate, they simply do not represent the wishes and beliefs of the vast majority of the British people, the political classes represent themselves now and it is their interests that reign supreme.
I have an ABSOLUTE right to be able to walk on any PUBLIC highway and see the faces of my fellow citizens.
Any other condition is UNACCEPTABLE in the Civil Society.
In fact, it is imperative that people do not hide their faces in public.
Anyone get the irony of the manipulating of our belief in freedom to strip away that freedom first from women and then from everyone?
We stopped having a free country some time ago.
In the sense that things are unrestricted – no.
In the sense that things are demorcratic – no.
In the sense that things are egalitarian – no.
The BBC has finally caught the Syrian ban on the burqa story that Biodegradable referenced in this thread. Syria bans veils at universities
It reads like a Syrian government press release which it probably is as Syria doesn’t permit foreign correspondents to be based there and keeps an iron fist over local journalists, bloggers and even letter writers.
In keeping with the BBC ‘style guide’ we learn the ruling could be a sign that Syrian Society is becoming more conservative. Actually it is a sign that Syria may becoming more radical.
As I mentioned in my reply to BioD conflict between the minority Alawite ruling group and the majority Sunni population leading to massacre is similarly ignored.
The article must have caused a severe case of cognitive dissonance in the editing. Lina Sinjab couldn’t find a single person to say how wonderful it is to be covered in a sack from head to toe or how unSyrian it is to make restrictions on wearing it it.
I have posted this before but, just to repeat, the burka should be compulsory for some people, for example , Diane Abbott.
Hi Sue,
“As for ‘how does it hurt anybody else etc.’ It hurts me, and the person who said that must be aware that it’s offensive otherwise she wouldn’t have called a ridiculous menacing-looking shroud ‘a small piece of cloth.’”
There is no right not to be offended. Kindly grow up, and accept that it’s not your place to tell others what to do (which I realise you’re not directly advocating, but the tone of your piece was woefully authoritarian).
Regards,
Sanity.
Hi Sanity,
I think “kindly grow up” has a woefully authoritarian tone, and it’s quite rude as well. Can’t you see that telling someone it’s not their place to tell others what to do sounds itself like telling someone what to do?
There is no right not to be offended. You said that.
It has a woefully patronising tone, but hardly authoritarian. I just don’t think it becomes of a rational adult human being to suggest that somebody else’s clothing actually offends and, therefore, hurts you.
Banning clothing is frankly beyond the pale and illogical in the extreme.
It is not, however, your place to tell people what to do. i.e. it is not your place to use force to make everybody else adhere to your preferences. It’s not mine either – I can merely suggest to you that you’re talking rubbish, but I can’t see myself supporting a ban on neoconservatism.
Although I do find it ironic that on the ‘biased BBC’ blog, you basically suggest the BBC ‘returns to core values’ in order to make things like the burqa socially unacceptable.
Right. Good one.
You may not like the idea of a ban. Lots of bien-pensants may not like it. But very large numbers of people in this country share 3 ideas :
Islam is alien to Western civilisation
On balance, the admission of large numbers of Muslims has damaged the economy and social services, lowered educational standards – and poses very serious dangers of internal terrorism.
The burqa if offensive, and in many cases represents total subjugation of women – and should be banned in public.
I personally find most of that irrelevant. Alien to western civilisation? Well, ok, if you would care to go through the history of ‘western civilisation’ and remove those things you might consider to be alien, then be my guest – you’ll find there are many influences, good, bad and rejected outright, but nevertheless the hallmark of free civilisation is the transfer and sharing of ideas. Building a wall to arbitrarily keep out that which you consider different is really, again, based on personal preference, not real harm caused.
Sorry, Muslims coming into this country has ‘damaged the economy and social services’? I’m no fan of Islam, and no fan of ANYBODY who festers and breeds while leeching off the state, but the fault is not the immigrants’ (who, on the whole, bring an economic net benefit). No, it’s the previous administration.
The burqa is offensive. The burqa is oppressive. The burqa is a piece of bloody cloth! Again, you’re trying to express a preference and using violence (i.e. legislation) to achieve your end. It is still nobody’s business what somebody else wears. Coercion of anybody is bad, and must be stopped forthwith. Banning things is neither conducive to liberty nor actually dealing with problems like domestic abuse (and, ironically enough, stealing away women’s liberty).
Finally, the appeal to popularity is rather fallacious and hardly relevant. Liberty comes before popular opinion (remember socialism?). It’s what allows you to express yourself in the first place.
You call legislation “violence”. That is plain daft.
You say immigration has led to a net benefit. Not true – and especially not true with immigrants who often speak no English and then resist the idea of adapting to English, who frequently lack the skills needed in a modern economy.
I take a simple view – we should only admit immigrants who ADD to our society. In particular – skilled immigrants. If that yardstick had been applied, there would be very few Muslims in Britain.
The Muslim community seems unable or unwilling to weed out the very many fundamentalists in its ranks, indeed it condones much of the terrorist and anti-British agenda. Take, take, take is the order of the day – demanding all manner of ridiculous social changes, while introducing medieval attitudes towards women.
Ben S.
If you had read either my article or my comments you would know that unlike most of the others on B-BBC I don’t advocate a ban. Because I think it would be inflammatory and unworkable. The reason I dislike and fear burqa wearing in the UK is that it’s an overt expression of an ideology that specifically considers me an abomination. To me it is as much of a uniform as the jackboot and swastika that I mentioned in my post.
You present it as a mere fashion statement, which suggests you are being deliberately obdurate. That’s assuming you know what fundamentalist Islam is.
John A and many of the others who I agree with on most things want to ban it, but you don’t call them “dear” and say “grow up”. No you save that for me.
Talking about what is and what isn’t another person’s place is ridiculous in this context. As a contributor to a website I post something containing my opinion, and if it’s of interest you discuss it. That’s how it works.
I don’t know how well you know this website, but I have from time to time offered to put up a guest post on behalf of anyone who has something interesting they want to say. You would be welcome to do that. If so, it would be your “place” and your opinion.
There.
Why not read my original post again, my subsequent comments, and if you think it’s what a grown-up would do, apologise
Ah, I did say way up there that I recognised you were not, in fact, supportive of a ban (at least not in the traditional sense). My main beef was with your reasoning behind that.
Accusations of sexism are of course interesting (if that’s what you were implying), but this is the internet, I assume aliases are pretty much asexual. The reason I replied to you is because you wrote the post (which of course is all well and good. I like a good argument.) Perhaps I should not have said ‘grow up’, but the sentiment of ‘it offends, it hurts!!’ looks quite childish, even selfish. Maybe I should’ve just said that, who knows?
I present it as a piece of clothing and an expression. Sure, it’s an expression of something absurd in the extreme, but, nonetheless, I actively defend their right to express in such a manner. This is in contrast to your attitude, which implies that bans are unnecessary IF it’s socially unacceptable. I don’t buy that at all. Bans are never necessary, society be damned – we cannot have the mob making rules for everyone. Not only is that at its base entirely immoral, it’s one hell of a slippery slope.
By all means work to make it socially unacceptable. I’m an atheist and have no love for any religion, so will argue against it at every opportunity. But not at the cost of liberty.
Quick addendum: I don’t really bother arguing with people who say things like ‘argh i’d ban mosques, rabblerabblerabble’ because such people are generally immune to reason. It gets old eventually.
So, what does a burqa “say” to you? If you see it in Britain, is that a celebration of British tolerance? Open-ended tolerance with no limits?
Free society can’t function without mutual respect and some sort of order. Freedom isn’t free-for-all anarchy, where ultimately ‘might is right’ everybody do as they please even if it’s to the detriment of others.
Core values means that, not tolerance of intolerance. Not Anything Goes.
You insist the burqa is just an insignificant piece of cloth. You choose to see it like that when you know that is utterly disingenuous. The wearers themselves attach a great deal of significance to it.
To me the burqa is an advertisement for something horrendous. Wearing it is the equivalent of an ad the size of an enormous hoarding. The ad is saying “I refuse to respect man made laws, I hear only the immutable word of Allah. I wish to separate myself from the beastliness of Jews, the kuffar, and my own offensive female body by covering it completely.”
Freedom to do that is not a true freedom.
Being at the receiving end of Islam’s particular hatred gives my view proportionate piquancy.
“By all means work to make it socially unacceptable”. I think you’re finally coming round…..
Burqa doesn’t really say a lot to me. It is a piece of cloth. Getting rid of it won’t get rid of Islam, or any other kind of authoritarianism (evidently).
Your view of freedom is interesting, however. Predictably, I profoundly disagree. Let’s see (selective quoting is meant to be IN context, not trying to mislead):
“Freedom isn’t free-for-all anarchy, where ultimately ‘might is right’ everybody do as they please even if it’s to the detriment of others.”
I don’t disagree. Freedom applies to all equally, and is not based on strength. I’m a huge fan of the non-aggression axiom (or the harm principle, if you like, which I’m sure you’re familiar with), as derived from self-ownership, which states that an individual can do anything he likes as long as it does not harm – that is to say, initiate force – against another individual. Burqas absolutely do not infringe on anybody else’s liberty. Causing offence also does not infringe on your liberty. It offends your preferences, which is something else entirely.
Therefore…
‘To me the burqa is an advertisement for something horrendous.’
This is irrelevant. What, exactly, does somebody else wearing a burqa do to *you*? In this context, I don’t care for your opinion on the motivation behind it, nor do I think it’s moral to use force to express a preference (violates the harm principle, see?). Although, yes, I know you aren’t arguing for a ban yet.
“The ad is saying “I refuse to respect man made laws, I hear only the immutable word of Allah. I wish to separate myself from the beastliness of Jews, the kuffar, and my own offensive female body by covering it completely.” ”
That’s their choice. Baffles me entirely, but if that’s how some peple want to live, then that’s their choice, frankly. As long as, and I’ll never tire of saying it, they don’t initate violence against others.
“Being at the receiving end of Islam’s particular hatred gives my view proportionate piquancy.”
Any coercion must be stopped immediately, but not at the expense of other, innocent, people’s liberty.
“I think you’re finally coming round…..”
You thought I was pro-Islam or something? Well, I suppose it could have come across like that at first. For me, liberty is more important than stamping out something based on a preference. Yeah sure I dislike burqas, Islam, whatever, but that’s MY preference, and forcing it on others is nasty.
“an individual can do anything he likes as long as it does not harm – that is to say, initiate force – against another individual.”
So a line is crossed only when it comes to inciting, or committing actual bodily harm?
If that’s the case, what does the BBC’s bias matter? Are you saying that normalising and laundering Islam and demonising Jews/Israel is a manifestation of liberty until such time as someone gets punched on the nose?
If British Jews are made uncomfortable and unwelcome in Britain while belligerent Islamists behave like cuckoos in the nest, that’s a manifestation of freedom as long as it stops short of physical violence?
All we do on this blog is advocate balance; in my case in relation to Islam and Israel. I don’t advocate incitement against Muslims, but I object to the consistent pro Islam anti Jewish slant which is endemic and thematic throughout the BBC. Many people this see it as sinister and reminiscent of pre 1930s Germany.
Send me a contribution to the blog if you like. Your views will get more of an airing that way.
Ah, well, private bias I’ve no problem with whatsoever, the BBC however, as a state-funded broadcaster, is entirely different. There’s a reason I visit this site, and it ain’t because I’m a fan of the BBC! Completely agree with what this site has to say about BBC bias.
And I might well take you up on that kind offer! 😉
If white Christians were forcing their women to walk around with their faces covered, it would be considered abuse and not permitted by law. I’d like to see someone deny that, and state that they’d tolerate it out of cultural and religous sensitivity. It’s not a legal requirement in Islam; it’s a cultural tradition which was co-opted by certain Muslim tribes.
It’s a piece of cloth which is a symbol of abuse. If these women walked around in public with bruises and bandages all the time because of abuse, should that be tolerated because it’s cultural behavior? Because the history of Western civilization isn’t pure, we have no right to condemn abuse when we see it now? If a Muslim man beats his wife or burns his sister’s face with acid over family honor, that doesn’t hurt me, or anyone here, any more than does a piece of cloth. Should that logic lead me to tolerate it?
The veil is abuse of human rights, of human decency. This is beyond merely culturally offensive.