Well, yes. To be honest, the only thing you ever had to do to see that the idea of a burqha ban was ludicrous was to try to imagine a situation in which legislators attempted to tell men what (not) to wear. The very fact that women’s clothes/appearance are considered to be a suitable subject for legislation (admittedly mostly by crazy people) is a telling indicator of continuing patriarchal norms. (Sorry to use the ‘p’ word this early on a Saturday.)

It seems to me that many women started to wear the veil or burqha as an essentially political response to 9/11 and the Iraq war; it was an arresting way of asserting their Muslim identity, and requiring western societies to start dealing with it.

Of course, there are also Muslim women who are oppressed and not given much choice about whether to wear the veil or not.* The best way for legislators to approach this problem is to provide outreach and support programmes (exactly the sort of thing that will be eviscerated by local authority cuts), and to stand firm against the notion of recognising sharia rulings in matters like divorce and inheritance.

*Just as there are non-Muslim women who are oppressed, bullied, threatened, killed by their partners etc etc.

“However, it has became apparent to me that those often shouting the loudest for a burka ban were never really those for whom women’s rights had figured as an overly important issue in the past.”

No !

Really ?

‘However, it has became apparent to me that those often shouting the loudest for a burka ban were never really those for whom women’s rights had figured as an overly important issue in the past.’

I’ve opposed the ban from the start – because it’s none of the state’s business to dictate what people wear, and because the ban is counter-productive and penalises the very people it is supposed to protect – but your reason for changing your mind – that you don’t want to be associated with some of those who also support the ban – is lousy.

Try deciding *matters of principle* on *grounds of principle* instead of knee-jerk opposition to those who’s motivations you suspect.

There’s too much of this kind of ‘thinking’ on this site: instead of looking at the issue at hand (‘What do I think if this matter?’) we get dreary attempts to second-guess others (‘What motivates people I oppose in other matters to adopt a position I would otherwise take myself if they hadn’t got there before me?’)

“I have decided in hindsight that I was somewhat guilty of jumping upon the `ban the burka’ bandwagon. I simply assumed that all women who do wear such garments are by default forced into doing so.”

Look, even if they were, it still doesn’t make any sense at all to punish the women for that fact, rather than the men doing the forcing. The reason you changed your mind should have had less to do with the right-wing views of the ban-the-burkha brigade and more to do with the patent illogic of banning the burkha itself rather than dealing with the social and equality issues it is claimed to represent.

At least the guy has come out and said that he was wrong, though. We could do with More of This Sort of Thing, in general, if you ask me.

The discussion of women wearing a Burkha is suppressed or not is rather futile.
But the political and religious views behind the idea of the burkha is disgusting and it’s against everything the left has been fighting for the last century.
It’s of course a rather odd position to defend an ideological expression of something you have been fighting against.
But why spend more time on discussing this. The burkha is a disgusting political expression, and the people who wear it are disgusting, but there is much more important social and political problems to discuss, than those of a hopelessly lost subculture.

What of all those shopping malls and stores which post notices telling customers wearing hoods and helmets to stay away?

The fact is that criminals in many countries have been using burqas as an effective disguise to facilitate robberies of banks and jewellry stores. This is just a small sample of reported cases from around the world:

Two burka-wearing bank robbers have pulled off a heist near Paris using a handgun concealed beneath their full Islamic veil.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7189090/Burka-wearing-gunmen-raid-French-bank.html

Authorities in North Carolina don’t know whether they are looking for a man or a woman in the search for a burqa-wearing bandit who walked into a bank Tuesday and pointed a gun at a teller before exiting with a bag full of money.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3745402

A man has been robbed at gunpoint by a bandit dressed in a burka in Sydney’s south yesterday. Police say the 35-year-old was delivering cash to jewellery retailers at a shopping centre in Miranda at about 5:00pm when two men started following him.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/06/2891505.htm

I have every sympathy with those MPs who say they don’t wish to conduct interviews with constituents who insist on concealing their faces. For one thing, it is uncivil and sheer bad manners. As the old adage went: When in Rome, do what the Romans do. Islamic countries widely enforce their local dress and dietary codes on visitors so I think we are entitled to reciprocate.

‘The people who wear it are disgusting’? What a hateful thing to say. ‘Hopelessly lost subculture’ – are you talking about Islam? If you’re talking about Wahhabism, I agree that it’s repulsive, but it’s a long way from ‘lost’ – it’s rather powerful, and an absolutely appropriate target for liberals/leftists everywhere.

A Canadian muslim group says Ban the Silly Burqa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meuAYcU16PA

“OTTAWA: A Muslim group on Thursday called for a ban on the wearing of burqas in public in Canada, saying it ‘marginalizes women.’

‘The burqa has absolutely no place in Canada,’ said Farzana Hassan of the Muslim Canadian Congress.
http://awaam.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/canadian-muslim-group-calls-for-burqa-ban/

@7 – but that could be addressed by case-by-case requests by the owners of private spaces (banks, shopping malls) for people to remove veils. No need for national legislation.

I too don’t like the idea of holding a conversation with someone whose face is entirely covered, but I think that’s my problem/perception, not anybody else’s. After all, I talk to all these imaginary people on the internet all day long, and I never see their faces.

The fact is that criminals in many countries have been reported as using burqas to conceal identities and weapons in order to facilitate robberies of banks and jewellry stores. It is very effective, so effective that the police often don’t know whether the robberies were conducted by men or women or whether the robbers were muslim or not.

Clearly this is more than just a simple issue of personal preferences about dress codes. IMO we can’t afford to go into denial over this real security threat.

I’m not in favour of a ban, police prosecuting women in veils/burqas would be ludicrous.

But I am in favour of civil sanctions against veils/burqas. You want a driving licence or passport? Not with a veil/burqa (I know a woman would not wear a veil for the photo on these but they do when they subsequently use them).

You want to use a public service? You remove your veil. You want to work in the public sector? You remove your veil.

It’s already happening to a small extent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6382247.stm

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/education/veil%20teacher%20loses%20case/170900

By the way, the veil is nothing to do with religion, the Koran does not mention the veil. It’s a just a cultural tradition, it’s thought muslim women started wearing the veil around the 13th century copying christian women in Constantinople.

@11 Bob B makes an excellent point:

“The fact is that criminals in many countries have been reported as using burqas to conceal identities and weapons in order to facilitate robberies of banks and jewellry stores. It is very effective, so effective that the police often don’t know whether the robberies were conducted by men or women or whether the robbers were muslim or not.

Clearly this is more than just a simple issue of personal preferences about dress codes. IMO we can’t afford to go into denial over this real security threat.”

It’s blatantly obvious that this is a serious security issue. Just like long overcoats, baggy jump suits and baggy clothes generally. And motorcycle helmets. People in many countries have worn the items listed to conceal identities and weapons in order to facilitate robberies. These can be so effective that the police often don’t don’t know if the robberies were committed by men or women or, crucially, the religion of the perpetrators. Don’t forget sports bags. And shopping bags. And briefcases. Bags generally. These have also been used to conceal weapons. These things represent a serious security issues and, IMHO. we can’t afford to bury our heads in the sand. Ban them all. Ban clothes. The only way we will ever prevent robberies, terrorism and, most importantly, people being a bit different and therefore irritating Bob B, is if we all walk around in the buff.

Yes, Bob, sarcasm. Why do your clothing – related security concerns only appear to apply to muslim women?

@11

Clearly this is more than just a simple issue of personal preferences about dress codes. IMO we can’t afford to go into denial over this real security threat.

While we’re banning the burqa and other specifically Islamic head-coverings in order to reduce crime, shall we not also pass a law that requires all criminals to wear black and white stripy jumpers, an eye-mask, flat-cap and to carry large sacks with “swag” written on them?
Surely once we can identify criminals with just a glance, crime is sure to fall down.

We are in the middle of a recession, millions are to be made unemployed, a bloody war in the near east and yet we keep getting these threads about religious women wearing a stupid piece of cloth.
The fact that some christian sects make their women serve the men and wear clothes that even princess Anne would not wear, not a sound.
Jewish sects that make the their poor lads wear hair lets that would make Brian may wince, make their women to be subservient to men and then cut their kids willies. Not a shout
All religions have an element of making women accept a role subservient to men.
Hence my secular beliefs but don’t just criticize Muslims for “brainwashing” women to accept their roles. Lets have all religions bashed not just one.

LOL ‘ban clothes’.

@12: not true to say hijab has ‘nothing to do with religion’. It’s not specifically referred to in the Quran, but some Muslims believe it to be hadith, which means that it very much forms part of their religious code. Others believe it to be a cultural preference.

What would be the reasoning behind demanding that hijab-wearing women do not partake of/work for public services?

“Yes, Bob, sarcasm. Why do your clothing – related security concerns only appear to apply to muslim women?”

But as said, the police often don’t know whether the robberies conducted by robbers wearing burqas were carried out by men or women or even whether the robbers were muslim or not.

One distinctive disbenefit of burqas is that these conceal faces so a range of regular security measures – such as CCTV or face recognition software – are rendered ineffective.

The fact that we can’t effectively block all disguises which might facilitate bank heists and the like isn’t a rational argument against banning one especially effective means of disguise.

Only a small minority of muslim women choose to wear burqas and there is no Islamic religious obligation to do so – which is why some muslim groups have supported a ban.

@17: We don’t have national legislation banning motorcycle helmets or balaclavas. Banks just have polite notices up requiring customers to remove said items. If any bank has identified hijab-wearing as a serious security threat, it is (I think? re. equality legislation) quite free to extend this request to face-covering veils.

‘There is no Islamic religious obligation to do so’ – it’s not that simple. Hadith is absolutely a religious obligation for observant Muslims, and many believe that wearing the hijab is hadith. (Look, I think ALL religions are fucking mad, I don’t make the rules.)

Oh god, here we go again.

Bob B et al, I refer you to all the arguments already made on this subject on the other thread.

@17 I don’t think “disbenefit” is actually a word, Bob. Rather like “misspoke.”

Anyway:

“But as said, the police often don’t know whether the robberies conducted by robbers wearing burqas were carried out by men or women or even whether the robbers were muslim or not.”

Yes, that’s not a difficult argument to follow. It’s not that I didn’t grasp it, just that:

a. The same effect is often achieved by motorcycle helmets, long overcoats …. you get the picture
b. I’m not sure I understand why it’s particularly important to establish what the religion of someone committing a robbery is. Gender, height, build, ethnicity/race, ok but why are you so worried about the fact that burqua – wearing means that the police can’t establish whether someone is a muslim?

“One distinctive disbenefit of burqas is that these conceal faces so a range of regular security measures – such as CCTV or face recognition software – are rendered ineffective.”

Again, not a difficult point to grasp and, in fact, one that many readers may have worked out for themselves without the benefit of you stating and re – stating it. However, and to labour the point slightly, the same effect is achived by wearing a motorcycle helmet (hooded jacket etc). People wearing bike helmets are not allowed in most banks. On the other hand, I haven’t heard anyone calling for people to be prevented from wearing them in public places generally and I haven’t seen a thread on this forum discussing the threat they represent to national security, law and order or your peace of mind. Do you see where I’m going with this, yet?

“The fact that we can’t effectively block all disguises which might facilitate bank heists and the like isn’t a rational argument against banning one especially effective means of disguise.”

I know. If you re – read my previous post you may get an inkling that I wasn’t trying very hard to present a rational argument. I was, mainly, taking the piss out of you. “But why?” you may ask, in surprise. Well, Bob, allow me to state the bleeding obvious; it’s because you have posted (twice now) putting forward arguments for banning the wearing of the burqua in public on security grounds. There are many other forms of dress, which are worn far more frequently and which carry the same “security risks”, but which you don’t seem to be terribly worried about. To be explicit, I’m saying that your hostility to the burqua has nothing to do with security concerns and everything to do with your hostility to a specific group of people. Otherwise, make a case for banning bike helmets, hoodies, baggy clothes, shopping bags etc etc etc in public cases.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding

Oh, and as for:

“Only a small minority of muslim women choose to wear burqas and there is no Islamic religious obligation to do so”

Well I’m glad that issue’s finally laid to rest by such a respected authority on islam. No further discussion needed there, eh?

@19 don’t spoil my fun

How come that some muslim groups in public debates have supported proposals to ban burqas?

How could they do that if wearing burqas is a fundamental tenet of Islam?

Besides there are religions which subscribe to all sorts of curious beliefs, prescriptions and proscriptions – religions such as satanism, voodoo, witchcraft, wicca, Scientology and the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

Are their tenets to be allowed equivalent freedoms of expression? Should Mormons be permitted polygamous marriages? In the late 18th century, a Hell Fire Club, with many illustrious members, including a Chancellor of the Exchequer of those times (Sir Francis Dashwood), practised satanic rites to the apparent enjoyment of all participants.

Recap: in Britain, catholics were denied full citizenship rights until the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829.

@22 Classic.

@22 – I don’t think that the fact of x being a tenet of a particular religion is a good argument for not banning x. I was just correcting your impression that hijab-wearing is not regarded as a proper religious obligation; by some Muslims, it is.

The liberal formulation for deciding whether or not something requires legislation is to try to work out whether or not the thing in question causes substantial harm, isn’t it? Does the fact of x [hijab-wearing] cause greater harm than the banning of x? I don’t believe it does.

@20: “To be explicit, I’m saying that your hostility to the burqua has nothing to do with security concerns and everything to do with your hostility to a specific group of people”

You claim to have personal and potent telepathic faculties in order to divine and reveal the “true motivation” for my security concerns relating to burqas regardless.

Try to stop being profoundly silly and focus instead on the evidence that several west European parliaments have past, or are in the process of passing, legislation to ban burqas or that public debates in a wide range of countries have focused precisely on the fact that burqas have been used as (very effective) disguises by robbers in bank heists and to conceal weapons.

Why these special concerns about protecting the minority practice of Muslim women and not about the beliefs and practices of satanism, voodoo, witchcraft, wicca, Scientology or the Church of the Latter Day Saints?

Presuambly, to be consistent, we should be defending this too:

“A young mother died hours after giving birth to twins because her faith prohibited a life-saving blood transfusion.”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23419620-jehovahs-witness-mother-dies-after-refusing-blood-transfusion-after-giving-birth-to-twins.do

“Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits ingesting blood and that Christians should therefore not accept blood transfusions or donate or store their own blood for transfusion.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

Good grief, not all this again. Well done OP for changing your mind and admitting that you’re wrong, but can’t we leave this debate alone now? The ban of clothes has been shown in loads of different examples to be misguided at best and plain ol’ racist at worst.
If you don’t like the burqa, don’t fucking wear it. But don’t tell others what they can and can’t do.

“But don’t tell others what they can and can’t do.”

Legislation to ban shopping malls and stores from posting notices telling customers wearing hoods and helmets to stay away?

@25

Sorry Bob but this:

public debates in a wide range of countries have focused precisely on the fact that burqas have been used as (very effective) disguises by robbers in bank heists and to conceal weapons.

is utter nonsense. The ban in France was part of its “national identity” debate and the amount of get-out clauses shows it nowt to do with keeping crime down (4000 people wear (or wore) the burqa in France).
Your other examples don’t work because you are fogetting JS Mill’s harm principle. You know, don’t interfere with what someone else chooses to do unless they are causing harm to others. The JWs are arguably causing harm if they blood transfusions for other people – though if they want to refuse them for themselves I’d say that’s fine. We don’t have a law against suicide anymore. Funnily enough I’m sure you used to invoke JSM on this very blog.

@27

Oh for goodness sake. There is a world of difference between private property rules and regs and state-endorsed banning of clothes.

[Shit, typo @28 - obviously meant to say "The JWs are arguably causing harm if they refuse blood transfusions for other people"]

Bob B

I think we need to ban Star Wars too:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1297087/Darth-Vader-robs-bank-Armed-man-demands-cash-New-York-raid.html

@31

And latex, perhaps even permanant marker pen! (that last one not so good for the robbers, alas).

not to mention the very serious crime threat that flowers pose.

So Bob B, are you going to be consistant and argue to ban all these items? Or do you just – as you admitted on the other thread about this – “feel threatened” when you see Muslim women wearing the burqa, and find it a bit scary (not grounds for legislation, methinks)?

@25 Bob, you ask me several questions, but before I respond I just wanted to make a suggestion; if you’re having trouble with some of the longer words in my posts then why not ask a member of the nursing staff to explain what they mean. It may save you the embarassment of posting even more incoherent shite

So, here we go again:

a. in post 13 I took the piss because you think that “security” is a sensible argument for banning the wearing of the burqua in public

b. in post 20 (that’s quite a long one, so you will probably need some help with it) I asked you why you think banning the wearing of the burqua in public was justified on security grounds when other types of clothing achieve the same result (from a bank robber’s point of view) and are worn far more frequently than the burqua

c. in post 20 I also asked why you think it’s particularly important for the police to know what the religion is of someone robbing a bank

now, if you answer my questions, then I’ll answer yours.

Also:

“You claim to have personal and potent telepathic faculties in order to divine and reveal the “true motivation” for my security concerns relating to burqas regardless.”

Well, I’ve double checked my post and I can’t find the part where I actually make that claim. In fact, I can’t find the words “potent” or “telepathic” or “faculties” or “divine” at all.* Maybe the muslims deleted that bit in order to make you look a bit of a tit.

* here’s a little tip which may help you look a little less stupid next time you post some prejudiced nonsense – did you see how I put ” ” around words that you actually used in your posts and which I was quoting? That’s what you’re meant to do, you see. What you’re NOT meant to do is use quotation marks around phrases unless you’re not actually quoting someone. So, because I didn’t use the phrase “true motivation” you really shouldn’t have used the quotation marks, should you?. I know it’s difficult Bob, but don’t worry, I’m here to help you

If a minority of Muslim women are entitled to go around in public places garbed in all-concealing burqas, despite the recognised security threat, why wasn’t a man permitted to walk from Land’s End to John O’Groats without any clothes when he wasn’t a security threat to anyone?

“The man dubbed the naked rambler has finally completed his marathon trek from Land’s End to John O’Groats. Stephen Gough, 44, from Hampshire, finished his walk after seven months, much of which was spent in jail. Mr Gough celebrated with a bottle of champagne and said he was looking forward to a good meal and a soft bed before heading home to Hampshire.

“The former Royal Marine made the 900-mile journey to question society’s attitude towards the human body.

“He was arrested several times, made several court appearances and served two jail sentences on his journey, following complaints from members of the public.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3420685.stm

Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander too.

If members of the public can legitimately object to the absence of clothes then surely members of the public should also be permitted to object to particular garments when these have created security threats in many countries – and when several west European legislatures have banned such garments and some muslim groups have supported bans in public debates?

The wearing of burqas is not a fundamental tenet of Islam and I see no reason for extending greater freedoms for the practising of the muslim religion without extending similar freedoms to other religions – such as satanism, voodoo, witchcraft, wicca, Scientology or the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

Why prevent Mormons from practising polygamy, which was a fundamental tenet of their religion?

@35 ” surely members of the public should also be permitted to object to particular garments”

Yes. I object to anything you’re wearing now, Bob, unless it’s a straightjacket.

“Yes. I object to anything you’re wearing now, Bob, unless it’s a straightjacket.”

Predictably, you avoid responding to the logic of the arguments put @35 and resort to personal abuse instead – which about says it all.

The sad but evident fact, UCL, is that you are not up to dealing with the argument put.

@35

Way to completely miss the point and avoid answering any questions, Bob. But hey, I’m game:

1) The case of the nude fella has nothing to do with whether or not certain women should be allowed to wear certain garments. None whatsoever – the former arguably falls foul of obsenity laws (not too clued up on it myself) which is why he was arrested following complaints – and to draw a false parrellel is clutching at straws.

2) “several west European legislatures have banned such garments” – and? You are of course more than aware of Europe’s treatment of minorities within living memory?

3)”and some muslim groups have supported bans in public debates?” Again, what is your point? Some Muslim groups are anti-ban too. The point of a liberal democracy is that we all get along together with no-one banning clothes. What would you say if someone wanted to ban mini-skirts? Or lipstick?

4)”The wearing of burqas is not a fundamental tenet of Islam” – maybe not, but a tiny few muslims believe it to be so. Why deny them that right when they are not hurting anybody?

5) “I see no reason for extending greater freedoms for the practising of the muslim religion without extending similar freedoms to other religions – such as satanism, voodoo, witchcraft, wicca, Scientology or the Church of the Latter Day Saints.” As long as they’re not hurting anybody, then that’s cool with me

Is the point clear yet Bob?

Hurting people – wrong.
Not hurting people – right.
Stopping people from hurting others – good.
Stopping people from doing something that causes no harm – bad.

Now, do you want to ban latex, Star Wars, marker pens, etc?

This debate just gets more absurd each time. Just because other European states ban something is precisely zero reason for us to do the same. Just because the naked rambler gets arrested is zero reason for us to ban muslim women from wearing clothes we personally don’t like. Stop arresting him would be my preferred solution.

‘…such as satanism, voodoo, witchcraft, wicca, Scientology or the Church of the Latter Day Saints. ‘

What exactly is the legislated restriction on articles of clothing that apply to the quoted religions? None that I can think of.

“The case of the nude fella has nothing to do with whether or not certain women should be allowed to wear certain garments. None whatsoever”

Rubbish. If the public are entitled to protest about a man not wearing any clothes when he didn’t constitute a threat to anyone, they are surely entitled to protest at garments, such as the burqa, which have been widely reported in many countries to have been used as a disguise by criminals in the course of armed robberies of banks and jewellry stores.

“You are of course more than aware of Europe’s treatment of minorities within living memory?”

That’s manifestly irrelevant to the current issues.

“Some Muslim groups are anti-ban too”

True – but the fact that some Muslims support banning burqas demonstrates that there is no fundamental religious obligation to wear burqas.

“Why deny them that right when they are not hurting anybody?”

Burqas create a general security threat which harms all – as demonstrated by reports from many countries of their use as a disguise by criminals when conducting bank heists: see links @7 above.

“As long as they’re not hurting anybody, then that’s cool with me”

Why aren’t Mormons allowed to practise polygamy then? That doesn’t hurt you and what’s wrong if all parties are consenting adults?

Besides being a general security threat, wearing burqas breaches standards of social civility, which is why several MPs have stated that they will refuse to conduct interviews with constituents who insist on remaining veiled.

“Just because other European states ban something is precisely zero reason for us to do the same”

C’mon. We belong to the EU. The fact that the parliaments of other west European countries, which have regular contested elections and which are not generally regarded as despotic, have voted with large majorities to ban burqas conflicts with claims here that such a ban is irrational and/or oppressive. Plainly, other west Europeans don’t think so.

“True – but the fact that some Muslims support banning burqas demonstrates that there is no fundamental religious obligation to wear burqas.”

So because Lutherans denying transubstantiation it means that all Catholics deny transubstantiation?

Think about it
…..

It doesn’t, does it?

““As long as they’re not hurting anybody, then that’s cool with me”

Why aren’t Mormons allowed to practise polygamy then? That doesn’t hurt you and what’s wrong if all parties are consenting adults?”

Um, if they get married abroad, it seems we do recognise it (source wikipedia, so treat with care).

And of course as a good liberal I don’t actually want polygamy or polyandry banned. I concede, it is open to abuse, but I don’t like banning things because they are open to abuse, I much prefer to ban the abuse where necessary.

That’s irrelevant. Burqas are a recognised general security threat because of their use in armed robberies and they are generally bad PR for the muslim community as well, which probably helps to explain why some muslim groups would be pleased to have a general ban – especially since there is no religious obligation to wear burqas and only a small minority of muslim women choose to do so.

In Rome, do as the Romans do. In the news:

“The execution-style killings of 10 people working for a Christian medical team in a remote region of northern Afghanistan fit into Taliban insurgents’ stated shift in tactics: Target Western civilians, especially Christians, as ‘foreign invaders.’”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/0807/International-Assistance-Mission-slayings-part-of-Taliban-war-strategy

Since the burqua is such a threat to banks can you cite any calls from err banks calling for parliament to legislate?

Since the burqua is such a threat to banks can you cite any calls from err banks in the UK calling for parliament to legislate?

” I don’t like banning things because they are open to abuse, I much prefer to ban the abuse where necessary.”

Pass laws banning robbers from wearing burqas as disguises and to conceal weapons? C’mon.

And why arrest, prosecute, convict and imprison a man who wanted to walk from John O’Groats to Land’s End without any clothes on when he wasn’t a threat to anyone?

It’s reassuring to know that parliaments in other west European countries have more sense.

To call the state regulating what people can wear as ‘ sense ‘ is bizarre, Bob.

I do wish you’d stop saying that there’s no religious obligation to wear the hijab. You seem to think that religious obligations are handily codified and available in Big Print versions. That’s not how it works. I can’t be bothered to go into the hadith thing again as you’re obviously not interested, but please stopstopstop.

Re. polygamy – it’s not exactly banned, is it? It’s just that you can’t *get* married, in the UK, to more than one person simultaneously. You don’t get fined/thrown into prison for living with more than one ‘wife’ though.

Your persistent characterisation of British Muslims as ‘visitors’ to this country is irksome, by the way. They’re not tourists, they’re citizens. They get to shape the public discourse of the UK, just like you do.

“Pass laws banning robbers from wearing burqas as disguises and to conceal weapons? C’mon.”

There are already laws against concealing weapons, whether or not you use a burqa or not is immaterial.

“To call the state regulating what people can wear as ‘ sense ‘ is bizarre, Bob.”

C’mon. Parliaments in France, Belgium and the Netherlands – which are hardly infamous as despotisms – are banning the wearing of burqas and, besdies, why was that man who wanted to walk from John O’Groats to Land’s End without any clothes prosecuted several times, convicted and jailed when he didn’t constitute a threat to anyone?

“Your persistent characterisation of British Muslims as ‘visitors’ to this country is irksome, by the way”

At no time have I characterised British muslims as visitors – if you deny that, I challenge you to show me where.

What I have done is to recall that ancient adage: When in Rome, do what the Romans do, which is how I expect to behave when visiting other countries and how Islamic countries expect visitors, migrants or settlers to behave.

Curious how the exchanges here have developed. Much of what I post is simply ignored – because it’s too inconvenient to the cause of promoting burqa wearing – and views and positions I don’t hold are ascribed to me, apparently because some have telepathic faculties and know my true sentiments and motives. Amazing.

If freedoms of expression are to be extended to muslims – regardless of whether these constitute a security threat – IMO similar latitude should be extended to other religions as well as to men who want to walk from John O’Groats to Land’s End without any clothes. Let Mormons – or anyone else – engage in polygamous marriages if they want to. Why not?

I dream that one day people will acknowledge two things: one principled; one practical.

1. Unless someone is causing harm to another, you have no right to interfere in their business or their lives. No matter how much you find certain practices abhorrent, you have no right to interfere. And even when harm is being caused – an item of clothing forced on someone, say – you’d best be very sure you’re doing the right thing, in the right way.

2. Banning things almost never works. Or, rather, it almost never works as intended. People think legislation will make an issue go away. It will not. What does happen? You create a lot more criminals. You drive people who will get what they really want regardless of its legality into the hands of other criminals who can provide it. In the case of things like abortions and genital mutilation, you simply ensure that the people who have it done (and they will) have it done in even worse circumstances. You cause divisions by alienating people from their communities, their traditions, their senses of self.

To me, at least, this is not rocket science. Why do so many have trouble with this? What happened to the principle of toleration – I may not respect what you do or how you do it, I may even find it personally appalling, but it is a greater evil for me to step in and tell you what to do.

Ban this. Ban that. I don’t like this. Ban it. Will people ever tire of messing with other people’s lives? I have my hope, but no expectation of it ever being realised.

Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Ban Everything.

@40

Burqas create a general security threat which harms all – as demonstrated by reports from many countries of their use as a disguise by criminals when conducting bank heists: see links @7 above.

heh. Even if that is the case, you’ve surely had a look at the cases of robberies being comitted by people using marker pens, flowers, a Star Wars outfit etc? Or is it only the burqa that criminals wear? What crazy logic man.

Why aren’t Mormons allowed to practise polygamy then? That doesn’t hurt you and what’s wrong if all parties are consenting adults?

I dunno, I personally wouldn’t stop anyone from practising it if everyone’s groovy with the situation. Not sure of the law on this one, but my basic point stands.

Why are you ignoring JS Mill, bob?

[btw: I've done a bit of research into the nude guy and it turns out he was arrested for something like walking on a public highway liable to cause an accident - cos of people looking at him as they drive I guess. Still trying to find out more info but it is irrelevant to the banning of clothes, because it's to do with obscenity and britain's attitude to public nudity - neither of which issue has anything to do with the burqa, as far as I know]

“Unless someone is causing harm to another”

Burqas are a security threat as demonstrated by reports from many countries of their use as disguises used by armed robbers – see links @7 above.

“Banning things almost never works”

True. Making murder or theft illegal haven’t stopped these crimes but few suggest these bans should therefore be repealed.

“Why are you ignoring JS Mill, bob?”

No – I’m not ignoring JS Mill. Burqas are a security threat and are therefore a source of potential harm to others who have every right to protest at this pervasive threat.

I support those MPs who have said that they will refuse to conduct interviews with constituents who insist on wearing veils. It is grossly impolite IMO and breaches our conventions of a civil society.

I notice that no one is taking up the issue of whether polygamy should be permitted between consenting adults – or extending freedoms of expression to other religions besides muslims. How come?

We’ve had this conversation here:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/07/16/for-the-right-to-wear-the-burqa-and-the-right-not-to/#comments

France can be an amazingly illiberal place, I’m not sure how much you want in common with that country.

http://badconscience.com/2010/07/26/liberte-egalite-fraternite/

“I notice that no one is taking up the issue of whether polygamy should be permitted between consenting adults – or extending freedoms of expression to other religions besides muslims. How come?”

Huh, both Mr S Pill and I have done so.

And:

potential harm =/= actual harm

“France can be an amazingly illiberal place, I’m not sure how much you want in common with that country.”

Really? I can’t say that I’ve noticed that. As best I can gather, the French wish to maintain a secular state – whereas the Church of England is established here – and the French have been far less inclined to censor literature than we have. On his release from prison here, Oscar Wilde evidently thought that living in France would be more tolerable experience than staying in Britain.

As a young teen at school in 1953, I went on an exchange visit to a lycée in France which, I discovered to my surprise, had no school uniform and where there was no act of worship every morning and no weekly class in RE because education in state schools in France was entirely secular. If parents wanted religious classes for their siblings, they had to make separate arrangements with the local priest for classes outside school hours.

To my amazement, the school also had no corporal punishment. Wednesday afternoons were left free of lessons in case anybody wanted to arrange sports activities although this seldom happened hence there were no pressures to be sporting and engage in team sports. The lycée had a good academic record.

I really can’t say that I’ve felt the country to be oppressive, whatever other failings it might have. Having a second home in the French countryside is evidently an aspiring notion for many more affluents Brits. I only wish I could afford it.

With Renault and Peugeot, I wonder how the French have managed to maintain such a large, indigenously owned car industry and why and how they manage to get nearly 80% of their electricity generated by nuclear power without that prompting the hysteria it would cause here?

Btw France has a muslim population of c. 6 million as compared with less than 2 million here.

You have still not answered this question, Bob. If these garments are a threat to banks a bit of logic dictates that the people most concerned would be banks. Which banks have petitioned parliament for legislation banning them?

Since the burqua is such a threat to banks can you cite any calls from err banks in the UK calling for parliament to legislate?

I just can’t see the logic that draws a parallel between the naked rambler getting arrested and the dress worn by some female muslims. If he wants to walk about naked that is fine by me but there is no connection between the two.

Even more bizarre is the supposed parallel between polygamy and the dress worn by some female muslims. One is about marriage where we do legislate and the other is dress sense where we do not. When we start to pass legislation telling those who wish wish to engage in polygamy how to dress you will have a point. Until then there is no connection.

“potential harm =/= actual harm”

The intelligent, constructive course is to try to prevent potential harm developing into actaul harm – that why we are often urged to apply the precautionary principle when assessing policy options:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
http://stats.lse.ac.uk/barrieu/Publications/Precaution.pdf

Had that been more diligently applied to the management of financial institutions, we might have avoided some of the excesses which led to the recent financial crisis.

58. Bob B

“France can be an amazingly illiberal place, I’m not sure how much you want in common with that country.”

Really? I can’t say that I’ve noticed that. As best I can gather, the French wish to maintain a secular state

2010 Index of Economic Freedom

France: World Rank: 64
Regional Rank: 30 of 43

United Kingdom: World Rank: 11
Regional Rank: 4 of 43

http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/France

“You have still not answered this question, Bob. If these garments are a threat to banks a bit of logic dictates that the people most concerned would be banks. Which banks have petitioned parliament for legislation banning them?”

The recent financial crisis isn’t much of a testament to the good sense of bankers or their inherent capacity to learn good lessons from experience.

As Alan Greenspan put it in testimony to the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee on 24 October 2008:

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122476545437862295.html

There’s also that excellent recent book by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff: This time is different – 800 years of financial crises (Princeton UP, 2009)

Public debates in other countries where burqas have been used as disguises in bank heists have certainly focused on the security issues, not least because the burqas were used to conceal weapons and because the police couldn’t tell whether the robbers had been men or women or muslims or not.

@15 Rhys I completely agree. This is getting boring. It shouldn’t even be a topic among liberal lefties: the state has no right to force anyone to wear or not to wear a particular piece of clothing, and we have far, far more important things to discuss.

It’s just too easy, isn’t it?

“The intelligent, constructive course is to try to prevent potential harm developing into actaul harm – that why we are often urged to apply the precautionary principle when assessing policy options:”

So, Bob, are you, or are you not also calling for a ban on the wearing of motor bike helmets, hooded tops and large overcoats in public? If not, why not?

@61: “2010 Index of Economic Freedom”

But the wearing of burqas isn’t an issue of “Economic Freedom” but of the contest between political freedoms and prudent precautionary security measures to resist the possibilities of potential harm developing into actual harm.

France has long had a dirigiste tradition of managing the national economy, at least since the time of Louis XIV, Jean-Bapiste Colbert and the doctrines of Mercantilism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Colbert

Those more familiar with French history than I am have remarked on the extraordinary continuity of the dirigiste traditions through successive presidencies and governments regardless of political colour:

“Edouard Balladur, the former French [Gaullist] prime minister [1993-5], memorably once asked: ‘What is the market? It is the law of the jungle, the law of nature. And what is civilisation? It is the struggle against nature.’”
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/culture.html

The Netherlands has a quite different dirigiste tradition of economic management but it has a long-standing reputation of liberal attitudes in social affairs.

“But the wearing of burqas isn’t an issue of “Economic Freedom” but of the contest between political freedoms and prudent precautionary security measures to resist the possibilities of potential harm developing into actual harm.”

So, Bob, are you, or are you not also calling for a ban on the wearing of motor bike helmets, hooded tops and large overcoats in public? If not, why not?

“So, Bob, are you, or are you not also calling for a ban on the wearing of motor bike helmets, hooded tops and large overcoats in public? If not, why not?”

I take an entirely pragmatic position. It’s impractical to ban all potential security threats but that shouldn’t deter us from attempting to minimise threats by banning those items it is practical to ban, a consideration which seems to have motivated the parliaments of France, Belgium and the Netherlands to ban burqas.

Only a small minority of muslim women choose to wear burqas and there is no fundamental religious obligation to do so. We are assured to appreciate the good sense of those muslim groups which have supported or even urged on proposals to ban burqas.

So, Bob, specifically which items of clothing do you advocate banning? For example, long overcoats can obviously be used to conceal weapons and they are not an essential item of clothing, even in cold weather. Do you think they should be banned? If not, why not? Motorcycle helmets can obviously be used to conceal identity. Do you think people should be banned from wearing them unless they are actually seated on a moving motorcycle? If not why not?

It is not possible to divorce the burqa from it’s oppressive cultural context.

Is there any other religious symbol which signifies quite so clearly the dysfunctional male mindset which requires women to dress like a bee keeper – the same sort of mindset that would seek deny the sort of freedoms that many women can now almost take for granted in most liberal democracies ?

Perhaps the reported upturn in hymenoplasties (amongst muslim women predominantly) runs this sort of rank sexism a close second?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295292

Incidentally it seems rather strange that a number of items appear on LC dealing specifically with the burqa – yet commentators are taken to task for discussing these bizarre predilections because they reflect so badly on certain muslims?

I’m not in favour of a ban – and I agree entirely with shatterface [3]

“So, Bob, specifically which items of clothing do you advocate banning?”

The case for banning burqas seems reasonably clear cut to me, especially since it would affect only a small minority of muslim women and because there is no religious obligation to wear burqas. Judging by press reports from many countries, burqas have been used by criminals in bank heists as disguises and to conceal weapons.

As for the other items, I would seek advice from the police and the security industry.

Just because it isn’t feasible to stop the use of all clothing which creates security hazards shouldn’t prevent us from minimising threats and risks by banning items it is feasible to ban without imposing disproportionate compliance costs. It makes sense to apply the precautionary principle in this context.

Alan Greenspan’s testimony to the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee on 24 October 2008 is very interesting if that was the question I had asked. However, I asked which UK banks have asked parliament to legislate? Is it the case they have not called for legislation but you know better than them what is good for their security?

Do you seriously believe that a burqa ban would deter someone who was seriously considering robbing a bank? Here is a clue they would use some other means of disguise. There is no deterrence because the security issue is a complete red herring. The biggest security threat to banks is not burqas or motorcycle helmets it is bank employees.

“However, I asked which UK banks have asked parliament to legislate? Is it the case they have not called for legislation but you know better than them what is good for their security?”

Frankly, from long personal experience and watching events in financial markets, banks often behave in silly ways so I’m not impressed by their failing to ask for a ban on burqas. This could be a function of how many heists from banks or security guards there have been in Britain from robbers disguised in burqas. The policy option of banning burqas has certainly been taken seriously in some other countries.

“Do you seriously believe that a burqa ban would deter someone who was seriously considering robbing a bank? Here is a clue they would use some other means of disguise.”

Obviously – there were bank heists long before the issue of burqas being used by criminals came up but burqas are particularly effective in concealing identity and weapons.

Burqas are also especially disarming up to the point where a weapon is produced. Press reports from other countries relate that the police and immediate crime victims are often unable to tell whether burqa disguised robbers were men or women and certainly not whether they were muslim or not.

Revealing full body scanners, introduced into airports this year as a security check for concealed weapons and explosives, is one way of tackling the security threat created by all-covering burqas:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html

And this is what happens:

A Muslim woman was barred from boarding a flight after she refused to undergo a full body scan for religious reasons. The passenger was passing through security at Manchester Airport when she was selected at random for a full-body scanner.

She was warned that she would be stopped from boarding the plane but she decided to forfeit her ticket to Pakistan rather than submit to the scan. Her female travelling companion also declined to step into the scanner, citing “medical reasons” for her refusal.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7048576.ece

Bob b

Seriously mate! Get a life. This rather sad obsession with an item of clothing worn by a couple of thousand people is getting tedious. The amount of time and effort you have put your waking hours thinking about this seems rather disproportionate to the threat of hordes of burka clad men storming the Nation’s banks. This is several weeks of your life that you will never get back. Cut your losses, mate, kick back and get yourself a hobby, I recommend a jigsaw or a rubics cube.

@75

I recommend a jigsaw or a rubics cube.

You might want to recommend something a little less taxing on the poor dear’s brain. How about collecting shiny paper?

BTW Steve Gough AKA “the Naked Rambler” only gets nicked and jailed in Scotland.

He can walk the length of England stark bollock naked with no trouble from the police, but as soon as he crosses the border the polis are waiting and he pure gets the boaby all the time so he does.

Time to ban rectums too:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml

Bob B:

The case for banning burqas seems reasonably clear cut to me, especially since it would affect only a small minority of muslim women and because there is no religious obligation to wear burqas. Judging by press reports from many countries, burqas have been used by criminals in bank heists as disguises and to conceal weapons.

As for the other items, I would seek advice from the police and the security industry.

Why is it that when it comes to the burkha, you’re furiously wanking yourself into a frenzy, decrying “BAN! BAN! BAN!”, but when it comes to all other potentially ban-able things you would defer to the police/security industry?

Are you sure you’re not just a teensy bit bigoted?

When in Rome, do what the Romans do. Islamic countries widely enforce their local dress and dietary codes on visitors so I think we are entitled to reciprocate.

There is so much wrong with this statement that it is hard to know where to begin.

1. Islamic countries do not represent muslims in this country. The vast majority of muslims in the UK are fucking British, idiot. They are not “visitors”. They are doing as the Romans do for they are Romans themselves.

2. Here in the UK, currently the law is “wear what you damn well want”. So your adage fails on those grounds.

3. Didn’t your mother ever teach you that other adage – “two wrongs don’t make a right”? Just because they do “Illiberal thing X” in Country A doesn’t mean that here in Country B we respond with Illiberal thing Y. e.g. In Iran, there is a Muslim woman going to be stoned. What is the proper reponse to that? The proper reponse is: TRY AND STOP THE DAMN STONING, not STONE ALL MUSLIM MEN IN BRITAIN. Over in Iran, they do illiberal stuff. Here in the UK, we’re supposed to be better than that. And when we’re not, we’re in the fucking wrong.

4. This is also the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. There is no “thing that the British do”. There are 60 million of us. We’re all different. We’re all unique. We all “do” different things.

5. Your adage “when in Rome”, is the naturalistic fallacy in all its fucktarded glory. Just because they do X in Rome doesn’t mean doing X in Rome is morally right. Practically it might be the smart thing to do to stay alive, but that doesn’t mean its moral. If Nick Clegg in Parliament tomorrow decreed that all of the First-Born were to be executed by the citizenry or else, would you just shrug your soldiers and say “When In Britain…” before reaching for an axe, or would you vehemently protest, shouting and screaming till the end of your days (or until the vile law was abolished) against Clegg’s State Mandated Infanticide?

———————-

People like you Bob B are exactly the reason it took roughly 1000 years between the Enlightenment of the Ancient World, and the Renaissance. You are a threat to my and everyone else’s safety in this country FAR FAR MORE than any Burkha clad religious moron.

Ahem. That should be “shrug your shoulders”.

The ire directed toward Bob B is impressive – for a moment or two it distracts from the mass hand wringing that arises amongst LC contributors when the comical antics of certain religious fundamentalists is called into question.

Their capacity for self-deception is such that they seem to regard the burqa as little more than a minor fashion conundrum, rather than the signifier of an untenable set of medieval beliefs which still flourishes amongst a subset of religious crackpots?

@75: “Seriously mate! Get a life. This rather sad obsession with an item of clothing worn by a couple of thousand people is getting tedious.”

Jim – you’re way behind the times: do try to keep up. Try recapping this BBC news item from three years ago:

“Schools will be able to ban pupils from wearing full-face veils on security, safety or learning grounds under new uniforms guidance issued by ministers. It says efforts must be made to accommodate religious clothing, but stresses the importance of teachers and pupils being able to make eye contact. It comes after a girl failed in a legal bid to overturn her school’s niqab ban.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6466221.stm

It’s hardly an obsession on my part when I post messages here on many topics, especially on economic issues, as can be easily confirmed.

If a man who wanted to walk from John O’Groats to Land’s End without any clothes can be arrested, prosecuted, convicted and jailed – twice – when he didn’t constitute a threat to anyone then surely persons wearing burqas, whether male or female, can be detained, prosecuted and jailed as threats to public security and safety.

Why else did they need to install those costly full body scanners at airports? At least we know for sure that the man not wearing any clothes wasn’t carrying concealed weapons or explosives.

Btw a news item from the press in India just a few weeks back:

Syria bans burqas in universities
http://news.oneindia.in/2010/07/19/syria-bans-burqas-in-universities.html

IMO the extent of personal abuse directed at me here reflects on the incapacity of the posters to make the case for their cause by rational argument as well as their consequential desperation. No surprise there.

It’s perhaps not surprising that Bob B has said he’ll listen to the police on what they want banned – except the burqa, which he’ll ban anyway. He perhaps wouldn’t want to listen to the police view of the burqa in case they disagree. The French leftwing website rue89 reported in May “Burqa: the police don’t want a ban either” ( http://www.rue89.com/2010/05/11/burqa-les-policiers-non-plus-ne-veulent-pas-dune-dinterdiction-151058 ).

Of course, I wouldn’t personally ban anything just because the police say so, but even people who do that might not end up banning the burqa. The supposed security benefits are hardly going to outweigh the increased risk of community tensions and disorder.

Good news update:

“Warwick University this weekend is the venue for what is billed as the UK’s first anti-terrorism camp and the BBC has been along to find out why so many Muslims turned up. Inside the lecture hall, you could hear a pin drop.

“Row upon row of earnest-looking young men and women were scribbling notes into a classily-bound journal handed out with their welcome pack.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10905070

@82: “It’s perhaps not surprising that Bob B has said he’ll listen to the police on what they want banned – except the burqa, which he’ll ban anyway. ”

I’ll listen to the police or anyone else with informed advice on security issues but I’m not necessarily obliged to follow the advice when other considerations carry more weight.

The Syrian government was evidently persuaded of the benefits of banning burqas in universities.

[82] “The supposed security benefits are hardly going to outweigh the increased risk of community tensions and disorder” – that’s right, rational debate with people who believe “the face of a woman is a source of corruption” is never going to be easy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women

“…for a moment or two it distracts from the mass hand wringing that arises amongst LC contributors when the comical antics of certain religious fundamentalists is called into question…Their capacity for self-deception is such that they seem to regard the burqa as little more than a minor fashion conundrum, rather than the signifier of an untenable set of medieval beliefs which still flourishes amongst a subset of religious crackpots?”

Um, which “LC contributor” are you referring to?

This is another powerful reason why governments should ban burqas in universities:

“Sirin Middya, 24, a teacher with West Bengal’s first muslim university Alia, has refused to wear a burqa in classes. This has prevented her from taking classes for the last three months. There is no stipulation about burqa in the guidelines of the Alia University but the students’ union is adamant that teachers should wear burqas.”
http://www.taratv.com/top_story.php?task=full&newsid=1932

So much for women in universities having a genuine choice about whether to wear burqas when confronted by fundamentalist Islam. Plainly, Sirin Middya wasn’t allowed the right to choose for herself.

Why else did they need to install those costly full body scanners at airports? At least we know for sure that the man not wearing any clothes wasn’t carrying concealed weapons or explosives.

Well, we know he wasn’t carrying concealed weapons or explosives outside his body.

[85] “which “LC contributor” are you referring to?” – well let’s start with the opening piece – as far as I can see you have felt it necessary to realign your position, not because of any deep seated principles, but merely due to the fact there is an embarrassing overlap with a little-englander like Hollobone.

I admit Hollobone may be a grade-A nob, but even narrow minded tories are a vast improvement on those who seek to justify disgusting sentiments like “the face of a woman is a source of corruption”.

Now in some peoples mind freedom of expression might include the freedom to abuse women, accompanied by an insane set of rationalisations to justify this absurd position – personally, I don’t see it that way, and feel we should not be afraid to point out an obvious injustice for fear of offending muslims.

, not because of any deep seated principles, but merely due to the fact

I think if you re-read the piece you’ll find its because of principles that he reverted to his natural position – taking into account civil liberties.

But it’s easy to forget civil liberties when it comes to Muslims these days. Everyone wants to tell them how to live their lives without a regard for how they’d like to be told how to dress themselves.

Is there a debate? Does anyone actually think it’s legitimate for the state to dictate how people should dress?

“Is there a debate? Does anyone actually think it’s legitimate for the state to dictate how people should dress?”

Evidently, large majorities in the parliaments of France, Belgium and the Netherlands consider it appropriate to legislate to ban the wearing of burqas.

Many Islamic countries enforce strict dress codes with severe penalties inflicted on women who don’t conform.

The government of Syria has recently banned the wearing of burqas in universities.

The students union at the University of Alia in West Bengal insists on women teachers wearing burqas.
http://www.taratv.com/top_story.php?task=full&newsid=1932

In Britain:

“Schools will be able to ban pupils from wearing full-face veils on security, safety or learning grounds under new uniforms guidance issued by ministers. It says efforts must be made to accommodate religious clothing, but stresses the importance of teachers and pupils being able to make eye contact. It comes after a girl failed in a legal bid to overturn her school’s niqab ban.” [2007]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6466221.stm

A man who wanted to walk from John O’Groats to Land’s End without any clothes was arrested, prosecuted, convicted and jailed – twice – when he didn’t constitute a threat to anyone. [2004]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3420685.stm

At least two MPs have said that they will not hold interviews with constituents who insist on remaining veiled.

[89] “But it’s easy to forget civil liberties when it comes to Muslims these days”.

What absolute rubbish – can you cite even ONE example of an incursion into the civil liberties of British muslims?

Or would anyone care to challenge the claim that is far more likely that fewer civil liberties exist for muslims, especially muslim women, in societies where there is a high prevalence of burqa wearing?

A ban is not the right way to approach this issue but neither is executing doctors for having the temerity to have different religious beliefs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/british-surgeon-karen-woo-afghanistan

According to the sole survivor, an Afghan man called Safiullah, the attackers first took their money and then lined them up to be shot. Kemtuz said Safiullah had been spared after he cried out passages from the Qur’an and pleadd: “I am a Muslim. Don’t kill me.”

The long standing chauvinism symbolised by the oppressive burqa, and by extension the kind of religious extremism that may have contributed to the execution of aid workers is simply incompatible with liberal values.

@90

Latest polls suggest around 67% of the British public want to ban the burqa IIRC which is incidentally down from 75% earlier this year. Will try and find sources for those.

@91

What the governments of France, the Netherlands, Belgium, West Bengal and Syria do or don’t do with regards to clothing laws makes no difference as to what we, Britain (historically a haven for refugees and the oppressed) should do. I’m not sure why you think it does. The USA is very similar to Britain in socio-cultural-economic terms but we don’t copy them in everything they do (death penalty, gun ownership, banning teaching evolution etc etc).
Your nonsense comparison with the nude guy has been debunked already. And you’ve still yet to say whether you’d ban marker pens, flowers, etc etc other items used in robberies. Would you?

@92

I sorta agree with you here – it’s the attitudes behind the veil (hohoho) that need challenging; criminalising women for wearing a particular garment is hardly going to help them.

[93] “it’s the attitudes behind the veil (hohoho) that need challenging; criminalising women for wearing a particular garment is hardly going to help them”.

That is my position in a nutshell, and remains so even if the odious Hollobone is jumping on the bandwagon for entirely different reasons.

“What the governments of France, the Netherlands, Belgium, West Bengal and Syria do or don’t do with regards to clothing laws makes no difference as to what we, Britain (historically a haven for refugees and the oppressed) should do. I’m not sure why you think it does. ”

It shows beyond dispute that legislators in other liberal western democracies consider it appropriate to ban burqas, which undoubtedly create security threats – hence body scanners at airports and reports from many countries of robbers wearing burqas to conceal identities and weapons – and which also detract from the normal conventions of civil society. At least two MPs in Britain have said they will refuse interviews with constituents who insist on remaining veiled.

“Your nonsense comparison with the nude guy has been debunked already. And you’ve still yet to say whether you’d ban marker pens, flowers, etc etc other items used in robberies. Would you?”

That’s just your usual dogmatic bluster which ignors the argument..

Why wasn’t the nude guy permitted his choice of clothing if a small minority of muslim women can insist on wearing burqas even though there is no religious obligation to do so and many of us regard burqas as offensive?

The courts in England have ruled that schools are fully entitled to ban pupils from wearing veils and burqas.

France do not look very ‘ liberal ‘ to me nor do they look very liberal to the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06fri2.html?ref=editorials

[96] “France do not look very ‘ liberal ‘ to me” – compared to what?

In Britain, we are apt to overlook or forget the long experience of the French with Islamic terrorism and jihadism going back more than a decade. I wonder what kind of popular sentiments might prevail here if we had endured a similar span of experience.

Try this on the spate of bombing of Paris Metro in 1995:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Paris_Metro_bombing

“A PARIS court sentenced 25 Muslim militants yesterday for planning attacks against the Eiffel Tower and other targets with explosives in support of rebels fighting Russian forces in Chechnya. The five main defendants, of Moroccan and Algerian origin, received prison terms of eight to ten years for planning terrorist acts. The others received lesser terms for criminal association. Two were acquitted in a trial which prosecutors said demonstrated the ‘globalisation of the jihad movement’. . . ” [2006]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2226738,00.html

And this news report from February this year:

“Two burqa-wearing robbers stole 4,500 euros from a post office in the suburbs of Paris Saturday. The gun toting thieves hid their handguns beneath the Islamic-style full veils. The French government is currently trying to restrict use of the burqa.”
http://www.france24.com/en/20100210-burqa-robbers-post-office-paris-nicolas-sarkozy-ban-national-identity-france-muslim

@71 incapable of answering the question, eh Bob? I wonder why that is.

You’re in favour of banning the wearing of the burqua in public on security grounds. Your justification is that people can use them to disguise their identity and/or weapons when committing robberies.

I asked you which other items of clothing you would ban on the same grounds. People have committed robberies wearing motorcycle helmets, thereby disguising their identities. People have committed robberies whilst carrying sports bags in which weapons are concealed. People have committed robberies whilst wearing long overcoats, in which weapons were concealed.

Your answer (well, let’s say response) was:

“As for the other items, I would seek advice from the police and the security industry.”

So why do you need to take advice from the police and security industry on the helmet, overcoat, bag issue but not on the burqua issue? Have you taken such advice yet? If so, from whom? What was it?

Also, and I’ve asked this several times but you haven’t answered, why do you feel it’s important that the police know whether the perpetrator of a robbery is a muslim? You mentioned this in your posts 11 and 17 (maybe others, I don’t know). Also, how can you tell from looking at someone if they’re a muslim?

“well let’s start with the opening piece – as far as I can see you have felt it necessary to realign your position, not because of any deep seated principles, but merely due to the fact there is an embarrassing overlap with a little-englander like Hollobone.”

Quite to the contrary: my natural position is to refrain from telling people what they should wear. That is the principle I start from. I changed my mind due to listening overly to those who claim that *all* women that wear the burka are forced to do so; and that the banning of the burka would actually make any real difference in the fight for women’s rights. We are all susceptible to illiberal urges. Seeing right-wing conservatives making the same argument holds a mirror up to one’s own arguments, and forces one to reassess one’s own position and one’s own possibly knee-jerk stance.

The idea that the burka is “contrary to liberal values” is an oxymoron – liberal values *are* the right to wear what one wishes so long as one is not harming others. It is not a defence of liberal values to suddenly deny those same values to those with ideas with which one does not agree. As I have said, I am not against a ban in public buildings – just as balaclavas and crash helmets are banned, – there should be no special privilege for religion; but the idea that the burka should be banned *because* it is an affront to liberal values is the soft equivalent of upholding human rights by locking people up without trial – it negates what you claim to be upholding.

“However, it has became apparent to me that those often shouting the loudest for a burka ban were never really those for whom women’s rights had figured as an overly important issue in the past.”

This is meant as understatement. I am of course aware that anti-Islamic sentiment is often an excuse for racism. However, what I was unaware of was quite how widespread the desire to ban anything considered “foreign” out of sheer authoritarianism and prejudice was: those shouting the loudest for a burka ban were those usually most indifferent to women’s issues in the past; or those seemingly obsessed with Muslims and Islam.

I hate the burka, but that does not mean I wish to ban it. That is liberalism and that is worth defending.

For you, Bob:

http://www.southeastbiker.co.uk/Edition-8/Helmet-Removal-At-Petrol-Stations-Revisited.aspx

http://www.closeprotectionworld.co.uk/close-protection-general-chat/34097-armed-robbery-ashbourne-derbyshire.html

http://www.northumbria.police.uk/news_and_events/media_centre/news_releases/details.asp?id=22377

http://nationaldailyngr.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1962:lagos-police-strategise-against-robbers-on-bike&catid=139:crime&Itemid=614

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/category/newsbyborough/hackney/

Clearly motorcycle helmets represent a serious risk to security. Will you join me in calling for them to be banned, Bob? Would it help if I were to tell you that some of the people who wear them are also suspected of being muslim?

[100] “liberal values *are* the right to wear what one wishes so long as one is not harming others” – since you regard my observation as an oxymoron I assume you have failed to grasp that women can be harmed, and in fact ARE being harmed, psychologically, or even physically, if they do not conform with beliefs that were formed during pre-enlightened times.
Surely these ancient prejudices should have long been consigned to the dustbin, but still they persist largely because of an insidious form of indoctrination during childhood, aided and abetted nowadays by the anxieties of educated people who really should know better.

Think about it – how did the obliteration of all that is unique about an individual, hidden behind a joyless uniform, ever come about in the first place?

To my mind, such beliefs are synonymous with the worst form of chauvenism. They are anti-rational, and certainly anti-female.

The burqa is a proxy for a sinister form of extremism that we should treat with the contempt it deserves.

Defending abuse, whatever form it may take, is a rather perverted form of liberalism in my book – while claims that muslim civil liberties are being abused, rather than burqa-clad women themselves, exemplifies the muddled sort of thinking that emerges when a certain brand of toxic fundamentalism is scrutinised [see 89].

“Muslim journalist Mona Eltahawy says she is appalled to hear Europeans defend the burqa and niqab. “A bizarre political correctness has tied the tongues of those who would normally rally to defend women’s rights,” she says. Yet, to argue directly with Islamic fundamentalists about gender equality is fruitless. According to Eltahawy, “the ideology that promotes the niqab and burqa does not believe in the concept of women’s rights to begin with”.

And …..
“There is no doubt that women who don this ostentatious costume in the West are proud of their piety. One such woman told me, “the niqab is submission and servitude to my Almighty Creator” and that I had no right to question her choice to wear it. Well, I do. What God demands men roam free while women wear a sackcloth that restricts their movement and dehumanises them? What God wants to punish women in this way? What God hates women so much that he restricts her right to be man’s equal?
The answer is obvious. No God. This is the work of men – who claim a direct link to the divine – and wish to keep women subordinate and under their control. It’s that simple”.

For those interested full article here;
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-burqa-is-a-war-on-women-20100520-vnp3.html

@102 the a&e charge nurse: “…that women can be harmed, and in fact ARE being harmed, psychologically, or even physically, if they do not conform with beliefs that were formed during pre-enlightened times.”

Wrong historically, a&e. Pre-enlightenment (for argument, say 1780) women in the middle east could not afford to wear burqas or veils; women were field workers as much as family rearers. Wealthy Muslim women in the middle east of that period did not wear veils. Some Coptic women wore veils; for modesty or to staunch the smell of shit in the gutters?

Total enclosure is a post-enlightenment phenomenon. Probably emerging from states that had the chance to defy us decadent liberals.

“There is no doubt that women who don this ostentatious costume in the West are proud of their piety. One such woman told me, “the niqab is submission and servitude to my Almighty Creator”

That can’t be true: Bob B himself has said six times in this thread alone that there is no such religious obligation.

@105 Quite right. In fact Bob has also pointed out that the burqua makes it impossible to tell the identity, gender and even religion of the person wearing it (see his classic post @11 – it’s pure genius). In view of this it’s blatantly obvious that whoever wrote:

“One such woman told me, “the niqab is submission and servitude to my Almighty Creator”

has been duped by a bank robber. Am I right, Bob?

@101: “I asked you which other items of clothing you would ban on the same grounds. People have committed robberies wearing motorcycle helmets, thereby disguising their identities”

My response was posted @68.

“why do you feel it’s important that the police know whether the perpetrator of a robbery is a muslim?”

My point was made ironically. Any criminal can use a burqa as a disguise – man, woman, muslim or non-muslim. The police have few identity clues after a robbery to aid investigations, which is precisly why the burqa is such a peculiarly effective means of disguise as well as a means for concealing weapons or explosives to use in crimes. Arguably far more effective as a criminal accessory than a motorcycle helmet would be.

We cannot prevent all traffic accidents but we can at least attempt to minimise the number of fatalities by a variety of measures – highway engineering, a highway code, speed limits, penalties for drunk and careless driving etc. It’s plain silly to say that because we can’t stop all accidents we should not apply any measures.

“So why do you need to take advice from the police and security industry on the helmet, overcoat, bag issue but not on the burqua issue? Have you taken such advice yet? If so, from whom? What was it?”

Do try not to be silly – I’ll listen to informed advice on security issues. That doesn’t oblige me to accept all the advice.

Evidently, the parliaments of France, Belgium and the Netherlands were sufficiently impressed with the case for passing laws to ban the burqa to do so with large majorities. Schools here have been empowered to stop pupils from wearing burqas and veils. The Syrian government has banned the burqa in universities.

“Clearly motorcycle helmets represent a serious risk to security. Will you join me in calling for them to be banned, Bob?”

Motorcycle helmets offer protection in traffic accidents to motorcycle riders and riders are obliged by law to wear them when riding their motorcycles on public highways. There are no corresponding benefits from wearing burqas – only a small minority of muslim women choose to wear burqas and there is no fundamental religious obligation to do so.

It’s a case of assessing the respective public costs and benefits of banning burqas and from banning helmets. The case for banning burqas is self-evidently stronger. I look at this pragmatically. There are few, if any, benefits from wearing burqas and they are an especially effective means of disguise for criminals. At least motorcycle helmets offer protection to riders in the event of traffic accidents.

@106 UCL: “In fact Bob has also pointed out that the burqua makes it impossible to tell the identity, gender…”

You are both wrong. Women who wear veils are asked to remove them at security points. Or anything worth the description “security”.

But “gender” is a wibbly word. Many transgender people choose to live another way without surgery.

. In view of this it’s blatantly obvious that whoever wrote:

“One such woman told me, “the niqab is submission and servitude to my Almighty Creator”

has been duped by a bank robber.

Even worse: she is the bank robber!

[104] thanks, Charlieman – I was thinking about religious chauvenism in a much broader sense, but it is always interesting to hear how different social settings, or the times they lived in, affect the choices people make.

@119 the a&e charge nurse:

Ta for the good manners. I expect to be shot down by a period expert.

@107 I think you’re confused, Bob. You wrote “@101″ but you’re quoting points I raised in post 99. At least you seem to have sorted out the confusion you were experiencing yesterday about the purpose of quotation marks. Glad I was able to help.

“My response was posted @68″ I know. You’ve responded several times ( I actually made a joke about it in post 99 but I doubt you understood; maybe you could get someone to explain it to you). You’re yet to actually answer the question. That’s why I keep asking it. That’s why I refer to your response, rather than to your answer (which doesn’t yet exist). You keep claiming that you want to ban the burqua on security grounds. Exactly the same argument as the one you have used applies to other types of clothing. Yet you don’t seem so keen to ban them. Why not?

I’m aware of the benefits of motorcycle helmets, Bob. Read post 69. Do you think that wearing them should be banned by anyone not seated on a moving motorcycle? If not, why not?

“Do try not to be silly – I’ll listen to informed advice on security issues. That doesn’t oblige me to accept all the advice.”

Yeah, right. But since you don’t actually participate in the formulation of public policy it doesn’t matter who you listen to or whether you take their advice, does it? Are you likely to be advised, in the near future, by some high level police officer or the director of a major security company? And what would accepting their advice actually mean, in your case? I’m not asking you these questions because I want some insight into the process by which legislation comes into force so please don’t pretend that your views actually have any significance outside your own imagination or the letters page of the Daily Mail. The police and security industries don’t queus up to give you advice so you’re not really in a position to accept it, are you? You’re just some unimportant mad old bloke who likes to write racist nonsense on a left wing website, please keep that in mind when you feel the urge to write something pompous again. Anyway, I’m asking the questions because:

a. You repeatedly avoid answering them
b. You produce fatuous arguments which are stupid enough to be really quite amusing
c. You’re a racist and, let’s face it, racist baiting is pretty funny
d. You actually seem to be so unintelligent as to believe that you are putting forward a well argued point of view and that, as long as you avoid answering questions and keep repeating your insane belief that the French et al are going to ban burqua wearing in public on security grounds, you’re not only perpetrating a triumph of logic but also that people wont notice you’re first class bigot. You don’t need to keep it up, Bob, they noticed some time ago.

““why do you feel it’s important that the police know whether the perpetrator of a robbery is a muslim?”

My point was made ironically.”

This will be a tough one for you. Explain how your (at least twice repeated) statement that the police are unable to determine whether burqua wearing criminals were muslims was ironic. Yes, I know you don’t actually know what irony means (that much is obvious from the fact that you have misused it here) but you could perhaps get your CPN to explain it to you. No rush to get back to me on this one, I know it will take a while.

“Any criminal can use a burqa as a disguise – man, woman, muslim or non-muslim”

True, Rather like erm, I don’t know, a motorcycle helmet? A long overcoat?

“The police have few identity clues after a robbery to aid investigations, which is precisly why the burqa is such a peculiarly effective means of disguise as well as a means for concealing weapons or explosives to use in crimes.”

Hmm, you have a point. Just as effective as … erm …. oh, what do you call those things, again? Ah yes, motorcycle helmets and long overcoats. (I don’t think precisly is a word, by the way)

“Arguably far more effective as a criminal accessory than a motorcycle helmet would be.”

Really? Go on then. Make that argument.

@108 “@106 UCL: “In fact Bob has also pointed out that the burqua makes it impossible to tell the identity, gender…”

You are both wrong. Women who wear veils are asked to remove them at security points. Or anything worth the description “security”.”

But, but ….. but …………… this can’t be true. I mean, if it were then it would mean that (dare I utter this blasphemy?) Bob has been talking complete shite throughout this entire thread. Now that just can’t be, can it?

@113 UCL: Sometimes people come down to LC for intellectual warfare. Other times, people are here to chew the fat about a contemporary topic. I assume that people are still working it out in their heads most of the time. I cannot internally explode about such things.

@112: “But since you don’t actually participate in the formulation of public policy it doesn’t matter who you listen to or whether you take their advice, does it?”

There are occasional signs that journalists and policy makers read popular blogs like this so who knows whether the arguements made in this thread will prove influential?

Your whole argument about banning burqas v helmets v overcoats is just plain silly. It’s a matter of assessing the public costs and benefits or each policy option.

Helmets and overcoats yield benefits to many people even if they are used by criminals. Buqas don’t yield public benefits but have provided a particularly effective disguise for criminals in many countries while conducting bank and store robberies.

Simple. QED

The case for banning burqas was sufficiently robust to persuade the parliaments of France, Belgium and the Netherlands to approve the legislation banning burqas with large majorities so my position is hardly confused or even mildly eccentric.

After all, the courts have decided that schools here are permitted to ban pupils from wearing burqas and veils and the governments of Syria and France have banned burqas in universities.

Nice to see Bob B is ignoring more people’s replies again.

police and immediate crime victims are often unable to tell whether burqa disguised robbers were men or women and certainly not whether they were muslim or not.

And without the burkha, how would one tell if someone was a muslim? FYI, a muslim is not defined as a brown person talking in tongues with a bomb strapped to their chest.

Buqas don’t yield public benefits

You be sure to tell the muslim women who wear them that when the jackboots start summarily disrobing them in the street.

You can’t argue burkhas “don’t yield public benefits”. They do, just as much as overcoats or almost anything that can be used for robberies. Some people wear burkhas. Ergo, there’s a prima facie case that they provide benefits to those that wear them.

Simple. QED

Untrue. And also a bad use of “QED”. Leave the Latin phrases to me.

The case for banning burqas was sufficiently robust to persuade the parliaments of France, Belgium and the Netherlands to approve the legislation banning burqas with large majorities so my position is hardly confused or even mildly eccentric.

This is an argument ad populum and is logical fallacy. Once upon a time, slavery was legal. Was slavery moral back then? Once upon a time, both the USA and Sweden operated eugenics programmes. Was eugenics moral back then?

Today, more Americans believe in creationism than evolution. Does that mean that creationism is correct because more people there support it? No, of course not. Who gives a shit what France etc think about the burkha? Why can’t they have got it wrong just as we think you have?

Besides, if you can point to the French Parliament and so on that agrees with you, why can’t we just point to the UK Parliament and so on that agrees with us? Do you see how pointing at those who agree with you accomplishes nothing yet?

After all, the courts have decided that schools here are permitted to ban pupils from wearing burqas and veils and the governments of Syria and France have banned burqas in universities.

Two points:

1. This is another simple logical fallacy (boy, you are stacking them up!) – this time you’re arguing from authority. Just because Court X says “Y” doesn’t mean that Y is moral. (And btw, you do know how Common Law works don’t you?)

2. No-one here is arguing against those decisions. Whether or not it is morally right to ban pupils from wearing the burkha, that is irrelevant to whether or not the burkha should be banned completely. WHICH IS THE CASE YOU’RE ARGUING.

In Britain, we are apt to overlook or forget the long experience of the French with Islamic terrorism and jihadism going back more than a decade. I wonder what kind of popular sentiments might prevail here if we had endured a similar span of experience.

You can screw your royal “we”. You’re the only one overlooking things. We have a much longer history of modern terrorism. Do you remember the IRA? Here’s a reminder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing

IMO the extent of personal abuse directed at me here reflects on the incapacity of the posters to make the case for their cause by rational argument as well as their consequential desperation.

Uh-oh. We’re being too aggressive for Bob B.

Well fuck it. There is no logical didferent between someone making point X by saying “X”, and that same person making point X by saying “X is fucking true, idiot”.

That you can’t respond logically and rationally is not a mark against any of our styles of arguing. It is a mark against you and ill-equipped neurological machinery.

So you can take your adolescent wingeing and your nauseating pearl-clutching, and shove it up your arse.

” You’re the only one overlooking things. We have a much longer history of modern terrorism. Do you remember the IRA? Here’s a reminder:”

France has a history of terrorism relating to its colonies in north Africa going back to the 1950s.

Our experience with IRA terrorism doesn’t mean that we recall the experience that the French have had, such as the spate of bombing of the Paris Metro on 1995, or that armed robbery in February this year involving burqa-wearing robbers reported in the link @98.

@118: “So you can take your adolescent wingeing and your nauseating pearl-clutching, and shove it up your arse.”

Presuambly, that abuse applies also to the parliamentarians of France, Belgium and the Netherlands who voted through legislation to ban burqas with large majorities.

Presuambly, that abuse applies also to the parliamentarians of France, Belgium and the Netherlands who voted through legislation to ban burqas with large majorities.

Why not? It doesn’t make a ban right, it makes a whole lot of people wrong.

You’re still stuck on this argmentum ad numerum argument. All it means is that you don’t have an abnormal view. It doesn’t mean that your view is the right one.

Talk about Political Correctness news – the developers of a shopping centre in Rochdale installed Muslim lavatories:

Last month the Exchange Shopping Centre in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, disclosed plans to build two “Nile squatting pans” alongside the traditional western lavatories in its newly refurbished lavatory blocks. The decision was made after staff underwent cultural awareness training.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7933878/Rochdale-shopping-centre-abandons-Muslim-friendly-lavatories.html

Another perennially topical news item about Oxfordshire from last year:

A man wearing a burkha helped steal designer watches worth £150,000 in an armed robbery . .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6089192/Man-in-burkha-robs-jewellery-store.html

If a guy not wearing any clothes can be arrested, convicted and jailed twice, it should be a straight forward matter ro arrest, convict and jail anyone wearing a burqa to protect public security – because of the evidence from many countries of burqas being used in armed robberies as disguises and to conceal weapons.

If a guy not wearing any clothes can be arrested, convicted and jailed twice,

And maybe he shouldn’t have been. Did you think of that?

“And maybe he shouldn’t have been. Did you think of that?”

Of course he shouldn’t have been arrested, convicted and jailed twice, reportedly because his nudity was offensive – but so much for the regular line that it’s unBritish for the state to tell people what to wear.

The well-documented fact is that burqas have been widely used in many countries by criminals to conduct armed robberies of banks and stores.

Can any one find a news report about a nude bank robber?

but so much for the regular line that it’s unBritish for the state to tell people what to wear.

I’ve never used that argument and it makes no difference to me about whether I think it is right to prohibit something. It seems no-one in this thread has used it either.

Can any one find a news report about a nude bank robber?

Time to ban clothes.

” It seems no-one in this thread has used it either.”

C’mon.

@3: “I’ve opposed the ban from the start – because it’s none of the state’s business to dictate what people wear,”

@47: “To call the state regulating what people can wear as ‘ sense ‘ is bizarre”

The state, regulations and traditions often prescribe wearing apparel. Why else do judges and barristers in court wear wigs? Look at the get-up of the Lord Chancellor. Hospital staff wear uniforms, as do the police on duty. Most parents in Britain strongly approve of school uniforms even though state schools in many other west European countries don’t have uniforms.

Fashion rules and dress codes have become more relaxed but try turning up to work in a bank or a financial institution dressed in anything too flamboyant. In the 1980s, a women colleague in local government was threatened with the sack for coming into the office dressed in a very presentable trousers suit – women had to wear skirts or dresses, never trousers.

Given the extent of reports from many countries about burqas being used in robberies of banks and stores, it’s very understandable why some parliaments in western Europe have passed laws banning burqas. If a guy without clothes can be arrested, charged, convicted and jailed twice over when he wasn’t threatening anyone, it is easily feasible to arrest, convict and jail any person appearing in public wearing a burqa as a threat to public security. Bring it on.

@125

Seems like your saying we should arrest women wearing burqas because they might commit a crime.
Shall we also arrest people wearing Star Wars masks? Or motorcycle helmets (more common in hold-ups, I’ll think you’ll find)? Or indeed any other form of face covering? Or is it just easier to pick on a group of women who hold views that you disagree with?
Well?

(balls, obviously meant “you’re” not “your”…)

“Seems like your saying we should arrest women wearing burqas because they might commit a crime”

We don’t KNOW whether they are women or not, ciminals or not, muslims or not.

What we do know is that burqas have been used in many countries in the course of armed robberies of banks and stores to conceal the identities of the perpetrators and their weapons, which is why the wearing of burqas constitutes a threat to public security, sufficiently so for the parliaments of France, Belgium and the Netherlands to pass laws banning burqas with large majorities.

If a guy can be arrested and jailed for not wearing any clothes, when he wasn’t threatening anyone, it’s certainly feasible to arrest and jail someone for wearing a burqa.

@3: “I’ve opposed the ban from the start – because it’s none of the state’s business to dictate what people wear,”

@47: “To call the state regulating what people can wear as ‘ sense ‘ is bizarre”

What’s that got to do with your claim that people in this thread used the unBritish argument?

If a guy can be arrested and jailed for not wearing any clothes, when he wasn’t threatening anyone, it’s certainly feasible to arrest and jail someone for wearing a burqa.

It’s “feasible” to arrest someone for wearing a fez.

‘ Helmets and overcoats yield benefits to many people even if they are used by criminals. Buqas don’t yield public benefits but have provided a particularly effective disguise for criminals in many countries while conducting bank and store robberies. ‘

Do you see what you are doing here, Bob. You are saying helmets and overcoats yield personal benefits i.e. the test is personal. However, when it comes to veils and Burqas the test is public benefits i.e. you are setting a different standard for muslims and non-muslims.

Your incessant irrelevant use of the naked rambler is tedious. He was arrested twice in England and immediately released because he was breaking no laws. He was not jailed in Scotland for wearing no clothes. He was jailed for contempt of court. He was arrested for breach of the peace, which in Scotland means anything the police want it to mean. Therefore, contrasting Scots law with muslim dress in a different legal jurisdiction is completely irrelevant.

Passing legislation banning veils and burqas to placate Little Englandshire would have no jurisdiction in Scotland and there is no way Scotland would ever pass such oppressive legislation of their own. Therefore, contrasting the law in Scotland preventing people walking around naked with no law in England preventing the wearing of burqas is even more irrelevant when one considers any change would have no jurisdiction.

Here is what a court in Scotland think when a thug does something that you want the state to do.
http://www.business.maktoob.com/20090000502464/Saudi_student_s_veil_ripper_gets_2_yrs_jail/Article.htm

“The offense you committed was a shameful one,” Sheriff Lindsay Wood said. “You are a man who has a number of racist convictions and you knew full well how offensive the act would have been to the lady,”

The sheriff also said Baikie’s act was an “absolute disgrace”.

If it is ‘ shameful ‘ and an ‘ absolute disgrace ‘ when a thug does it, how can ripping a veil from someone through legislation not also be shameful?

Richard W wins the internet.

@129 To be fair to Bob B, I might have made the unBritish argument upthread (can’t be bothered to check – I did on my blog, anyway) and I’d stand by it – it is quite unbecoming of the state to legislate what certain followers of a religion may or may not wear in public if they aren’t causing any harm to others.

Your incessant irrelevant use of the naked rambler is tedious. He was arrested twice in England and immediately released because he was breaking no laws. He was not jailed in Scotland for wearing no clothes. He was jailed for contempt of court. He was arrested for breach of the peace, which in Scotland means anything the police want it to mean. Therefore, contrasting Scots law with muslim dress in a different legal jurisdiction is completely irrelevant.

Passing legislation banning veils and burqas to placate Little Englandshire would have no jurisdiction in Scotland and there is no way Scotland would ever pass such oppressive legislation of their own…

I am not sure the evidence of the first paragraph backs up the contention of the second here…

Anyway, back to the actual argument. The way I look at the problem (as opposed to looking at naked ramblers, which my mum told me will make me go blind) is simple enough. Although I do not want to do so now, I may one day want to wear a burqa (yes, I know I’m a male with no religious convictions, but who knows what the future will bring?). If we ban the wearing of such, I cannot do so. Why – what is it that you suspect me of wanting to do (other than being a transgender muslim in the future…) that you want to ban me wearing a burqa.

“if they aren’t causing any harm to others.”

It’s undeniable that burqas constitute a continuing serious security threat given the wide spread reports from many countries of their use to facilitate armed robberies of banks and stores.

Playing “the Britain is a bastion of personal liberty card” is just laughable given the twice jailing of that guy who wanted to walk from John O’Groats to Land’s End without any clothes when he wasn’t harming or even threatening anyone.

And this:

“England and Wales have the highest per capita prison population in Western Europe – 143 people per 100,000.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn1page1.stm

@Bob B

did you read Richard W’s comment @130? It deals very clearly with your naked rambler obsession. Your “security threat” argument has been knocked down so many times I’m amazed you can still use it – once again: masks, helmets, marker pens, flowers and even sex toys have been used in robberies. I’ve not played the “Britain is a bastion of personal liberty card” : merely that british people normally don’t give a hoot what people get up to if its not impinging on other peoples rights. Weighing up those rights and responsibilities is the biggie but legislating against an item of clothing that is worn – on the whole – by a minority of muslim women is stupid and self-defeating.
And for the last time – France didn’t ban the burqa because of security threats. Show me otherwise and I’ll retract that but as far as I am aware it was because of their “national identity” programme. So stop using security threats in france as an example.

Oh and I’m not sure what the prison population has to do with anything. How many are in jail because they practiced their religious beliefs?

“did you read Richard W’s comment @130? It deals very clearly with your naked rambler obsession. Your “security threat” argument has been knocked down so many times I’m amazed you can still use it – once again: masks, helmets, marker pens, flowers and even sex toys have been used in robberies.”

What a silly response. My arguments haven’t been knocked down by rational argument.

Beyond dispute, burqas have been used as a disguise in many armed robberies and to conceal weapons – so ban burqas.

All sorts of other accessories and equipment may have been used by robbers too but most of that has alternative valued uses. Burqas don’t. Only a small minority of muslim women choose to wear them and there is no religious obligation to do so.

Hence, there’s a clear, indisputable net gain from banning burqas. That would remove from criminal options one especially effective and disarming means for armed robbers to conceal indentities and weapons. The counter arguments are just plain silly – which is why the parliaments of France, Belgium and the Netherlands have (very sensibly) voted by large majorities to ban burqas.

There’s no rational case for jailing a man who wants to walk around nude without threatening anyone and insisting on the right of a small minority of muslim women to wear burqas when burqas have been used in many armed robberies in a range of countries to conceal identities and weapons.

*gives up*

… there is no religious obligation to [wear the burqa]

False.

the parliaments of France, Belgium and the Netherlands have (very sensibly) voted by large majorities to ban burqas [for security reasons].

False.

There’s no rational case for jailing a man who wants to walk around nude without threatening anyone…

True.

Maybe we should ban skimpy hot pants as well?

If there is an Islamic religious obligation to wear the burqa, why do so few muslim women choose to do so?

How come Syria, a muslim country, has banned the burqa in schools, universities and colleges?

The historic Islamic architecture in the ancient silk road city of Samarkand in Uzbekistan is truly magnificient:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpE1JJIavVk

What’s so intriguing are the various clips of scenes of markets and bazars in Samarkand showing many, often young women pedestrians going about unmolested without any heading covering at all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozs61jJ0aDY

“Maybe we should ban skimpy hot pants as well?”

Why? Skimpy hot pants aren’t regularly used as a disguise by armed bank robbers to conceal identities and weapons.

If there is an Islamic religious obligation to wear the burqa, why do so few muslim women choose to do so?

because religions aren’t homogenous, as has already been pointed out a dozen times.

How come Syria, a muslim country, has banned the burqa in schools, universities and colleges?

I don’t know. It’s not a particularly liberal country, is it?

Transubstantiation Bob B, transubstantiation.

I’m not just saying it twice because I can spell it with the help of word’s little red line, but because it illustrates that you have no more right to pontificate on the one true meaning of a religion than the pope does.

*gives up*

“It’s not a particularly liberal country, is it?”

England and Wales has the largest per capita prison population in western Europe – hardly a convincing sign of prevailing liberal attitudes.

I don’t consider it liberal if a guy can’t walk from John O’Groats to Land’s End with no clothes on without being arrested, convicted and jailed twice when he wasn’t a theat to anyone. Armed robbers don’t go nude when robbing banks and stores.

*ungives-up*

“England and Wales has the largest per capita prison population in western Europe – hardly a convincing sign of prevailing liberal attitudes.”

So because we’re not that liberal, we should get less liberal?

“Armed robbers don’t go nude when robbing banks and stores.”

BBC: Police nab naked ‘bank robbers’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4483926.stm

Fish in barrel, meet gun, gun meet fish in barrel (luckily the fish will never know its me, because I’m wearing a burqa: Dastardly!).

Bob B, I already agreed it’s wrong to lock up people for walking around naked.

Never mind banning burqas, in Germany the authorities have just shut down a mosque:

“German police have shut down the Hamburg mosque where the 9/11 hijackers met before their suicide attacks on the US in 2001. Police said they believed the Taiba mosque was again being used as a meeting point for extremists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10911542

How “liberal” is that in the context?

The regular burqa clad armed bank robbers you keep on about, Bob. Since it is the UK we are discussing not some other place. A rough guess will do, how many armed bank robberies where the robber was wearing a burqa have there been in Britain over the ten years? None? One ? Ten? One hundred? One thousand?

@147

*un-gives up for a second*

It’s that whole “do no harm” thing, Bob. Was that mosque teaching kids violence and hate? The Germans presumed so hence closing it down. Same reason why I can’t go around trying to start a race war if I wanted to. Rights and responsibilities.

*gives up again*

Bob, I agree that lots of people do illiberal things.

My case for banning burqas is not because I believe in applyng “illiberal” or repressive measures for their own sake but because the evidence suggests that banning burqas will remove an especially effective disguise used by armed robbers in many countries to conceal identities and weapons.

Moreover, the ban can be achieved with relatively small compliance costs since so few muslim women choose to wear burqas in Britain and there is no religious obligation to do so.

It’s not as though prevailing cultures in Islamic countries are particularly noted for liberal attitudes towards dress codes or much else. The morality police in Iran are already infamous for strict enforcement of a dress code, a dress code that is significantly more restrictive than in other muslim countries – such as Turkey, Syria or Uzbekistan.

At the Alia University in West Bengal, news reports say a recently appointed young woman teacher has been unable to teach because the students’ union demands that she wear a burqa to do so:

“Sirin Middya, 24, a teacher with West Bengal’s first muslim university Alia, has refused to wear a burqa in classes. This has prevented her from taking classes for the last three months. There is no stipulation about burqa in the guidelines of the Alia University but the students’ union is adamant that teachers should wear burqas.”
http://www.taratv.com/top_story.php?task=full&newsid=1932

@Bob

You might find this useful: http://guide.muslimsinbritain.org/guide7.html (not being sarcastic or ‘owt, you genuinally might learn a bit more about Islamic dress from it).

“you genuinally might learn a bit more about Islamic dress from it”

I keep an open mind about muslim values and practices. Try: ‘Exorcisms’ performed on Chechen stolen brides
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10913297

Has the Muslim Council of Britain issued a statement about this atrocity?

Blog reveals Afghanistan medic Karen Woo’s dedication
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10903737

“Has the Muslim Council of Britain issued a statement about this atrocity?”

Bob B, when are you going to issue a statement about amritsar?

Bob,

My case for banning burqas is not because I believe in applyng “illiberal” or repressive measures for their own sake but because the evidence suggests that banning burqas will remove an especially effective disguise used by armed robbers in many countries to conceal identities and weapons.

Well, it’s not just that is it? In another thread you said you’re scared of them.

“Bob B, when are you going to issue a statement about amritsar?”

I’m not inclined to support or whitewash terrorism or wanton slaughter of inncoent victims, whether in amritsar – or in Mumbai in 2008, when more than 170 people were murdered.

“In another thread you said you’re scared of them.”

Which thread was that? But isn’t it rational to be afraid of the possibility of terrorist attacks? Recall the strikes on the London tube at 7/7 in 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/london_explosions/default.stm

If I was planning to disguise myself in an activity that may involve quick movement and producing items from under clothing (bank robbing), I can’t say that a burqa would be my first choice. They hardly allow running away, and the potential for embarassingly tangling the gun up in all that material is huge. Interestingly, it appears all bank robbers in this country up to now have made the same assessment (any would be bank robbers who have ended up on this thread due to googling ‘bank robbing’ or similiar, please take this as free advice).

But if your only argument for banning something is that it is a security risk, whilst refusing to address the fact that so are hooded jackets (often worn by bank robbers), sunglasses (also often worn by irritating fools in pubs, and bank robbers) and hats, then it is seriously weak. In fact, unlike Bob, I know of examples where viels are considered a problem: most exam boards and universities (where it is essential that you know the person sitting the examination is the person who is meant to be sitting the examination) do not ban viels, just insist that candidates wearing one reveal their faces to an invigilator. Simple procedure, risk averted. Security is probably best managed by common sense rather than stupid laws.

“But if your only argument for banning something is that it is a security risk, whilst refusing to address the fact that so are hooded jackets ”

That’s a silly argument. It’s a matter of assessing the costs and benefits of various policy options.

All sorts of other accessories and equipment – besides burqas – may have been used by armed robbers besdies burqas but most of that has valued, alternative uses. Burqas don’t. Only a small minority of muslim women choose to wear them and there is no religious obligation to do so. Unlike overcoats and motorcycle helmets, the compliance cost of banning burqas is small.

121. Muslim toilets. Bollocks.
http://exclarotive.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/toilet-paper/
I’ve visited a few squatter toilets in France in my time, as recently as a couple of years ago in a Paris cafe (why is ‘cafe’ red-underlined like it’s spelt wrong btw?).
They’re not Muslim toilets. In fact a local Muslim councillor called them ‘an embarrassment’.
They are common all over the world including China.
Anyone can use them, presumably.

Bob B,

Your argument for banning burqas is therefore that we can ban them in order to minimalise a risk not yet evidenced in this country at minimal cost – increased tension with the Muslim community, reduced personal freedom, silly court cases when I am arrested for walking round in a burqa in protest…

Doesn’t add up to me. Anyway, cost/benefit analysis is an imprecise thing around economics, never mind politics. I think we should generally work on principles – the French banned it because it is a religious symbol and they are a secular state, which is a consistent principle. Banning it because we can at little cost when other (more effective) security risks can not be banned is not a principle, just a weak argument.

And to retain the French connection…

Claire,

Café is still the proper spelling of the word, despite the fact it has been anglicised.

“Your argument for banning burqas is therefore that we can ban them in order to minimalise a risk not yet evidenced in this country at minimal cost ”

Sadly, that is not so – this news report relates to an armed robbery in Oxfordshire last year:

Police have released CCTV pictures showing a man dressed in a burka taking part in an armed robbery at a jewellers in Banbury, Oxfordshire, on Tuesday.

Three men threatened staff at Michael Jones Jewellers on High Street with handguns and a sledgehammer.

They stole 64 designer watches valued at £279,000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8226919.stm

And this report to Bedfordshire this year:

A robber disguised in a burka and brandishing a knife has struck at a third travel agent in less than a year.

The man, who only had his eyes visible, robbed Thomson Travel in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, on Saturday.

He threatened two female members of staff before forcing one to fill a bag with a large amount of money from an office and till and then escaping.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8678243.stm

And this to the West Midlands in 2008:

Officers looking for a man who raided a jewellers while wearing a burka are investigating a similar incident.
A man thought to be wearing a burka threatened a security driver in Birmingham on 14 March with what is thought to be a firearm before fleeing.

Last Thursday, an armed robber pushing a child’s buggy and disguised as a woman in a burka went to the Friends Jewellers in Smethwick, West Midlands.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7309548.stm

We should cheer Sirin Middya on for resisting attempts to force her to wear a burqa when teaching classes at Aliah University:

A teacher at West Bengal’s first Muslim University, who was not allowed to hold classes after she defied the students’ union diktat to wear a burqa, has finally won her battle following the intervention of a state minister. Sirin Middya, 24, was assigned to library duty at the Aliah University on the insistence of the students’ union which objected to Sirin’s refusal to wear a burqa in class, University sources said.

The Union had issued a directive in April that the eight women teachers must wear a burqa to class.

The university authorities, at the intervention of West Bengal Minority Affairs minister Abdus Sattar, have now asked Sirin to resume classes, the sources said. However, they have not specified when she will start teaching.

The Vice-Chancellor, Syed Shamsul Alam, was urged to allow Sirin to resume teaching since there was no dress code at the university, they said.

The students union has now said that the teacher could take classes if she is dressed ‘decently’
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Teacher-wins-fight-against-burqa-diktat/Article1-584713.aspx

@Bob B

Just out of interest, how do you define “religious obligation”?

And yes, that woman should be applauded for resisting coercion. Coercion is wrong in all cases, whether it be to wear or not to wear; it should be about personal freedom.

“Just out of interest, how do you define ‘religious obligation’? ”

I take it that “obligation” would be indicated if there would be some explclt, binding and universal sciptural imperative in holy Islamic literature for faithful women muslims to wear all-covering garments such as burqas.

There appears to be no such binding, universal imperative and only a small minority of muslim women choose to wear burqas – IMO to the everlasting credit of the majority who have more sense.

161. Bob

So much for your argument earlier in the thread that we must ban them because the police don’t know the gender of robbers. All your examples seem to be err, a man.

11. Bob B 1:27 pm, August 7, 2010
‘ It is very effective, so effective that the police often don’t know whether the robberies were conducted by men or women or whether the robbers were muslim or not. ‘

‘ Police have released CCTV pictures showing a man dressed in a burka taking part in an armed robbery at a jewellers in Banbury, Oxfordshire, on Tuesday.

Three men threatened staff at Michael Jones Jewellers on High Street with handguns and a sledgehammer.

And this report to Bedfordshire this year:

A robber disguised in a burka and brandishing a knife has struck at a third travel agent in less than a year.

The man, who only had his eyes visible, robbed Thomson Travel in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, on Saturday.

He threatened two female members of staff before forcing one to fill a bag with a large amount of money from an office and till and then escaping.

And this to the West Midlands in 2008:

A man thought to be wearing a burka threatened a security driver in Birmingham on 14 March with what is thought to be a firearm before fleeing. ‘

@Bob B

OK so I’m glad you’ve cleared that up. Now also just out of interest how many “religious obligations” that Christians and Jews observe are in their respective holy books? In particular with relation to, but not limited to, matters of transubstantiation, the ten commandments, saying the Latin Mass, barmitzvahs etc.

@165: “So much for your argument earlier in the thread that we must ban them because the police don’t know the gender of robbers. All your examples seem to be err, a man.”

Gender identity only excludes half the human race and doesn’t take the police further forward than the regular statistic that the overwhelming majority of armed robberies are conducted by males. Some reports of burqas wearing armed robbers in other countries make no reference to the gender identity of the robbers.

@166: “OK so I’m glad you’ve cleared that up. Now also just out of interest how many ‘religious obligations’ that Christians and Jews observe are in their respective holy books? In particular with relation to, but not limited to, matters of transubstantiation, the ten commandments, saying the Latin Mass, barmitzvahs etc.”

I’ve not the faintest idea since I don’t subscribe to any religious faith. But why restrict the question to just the Abrahamic faiths?

What of Buddhists and Hindus? Or the followers of Confucius, who was a secularist? Why not be comprehensive and include Scientology, Satanism, witchcraft, the Church of the Latter Saints (Mormon), Jevhova Witnesses and all the rest?

The fact remains that only a small minority of muslim women choose to wear burqas so banning them is not much of an imposition on the whole muslim community. Indeed, some muslim groups have campaigned to get burqas banned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUrPTpxMcvw

I’d be more impressed with the supposed libertarian sentiments of the “Save the Burqa” lobby if there had been more expressions of outrage over women teachers at Aliah University in West Bengal being forced to wear burqas when teaching as reported @162.

@Bob

That doesn’t answer my question, alas. You helpfully defined what you mean by “religious obligations” with regards to the Muslim faith, yet refuse to do so for the two I mentioned? That seems a bit strange. Also the reason why I chose those two monotheisms is because they have a lot in common – but if you’d like to also define “religious obligation” for “Buddhists, Hindus, Confucius followers, Scientology, Satanism, witchcraft, the Church of the Latter Saints (Mormon), [and] Jevhova Witnesses” then I’d be interested to hear it. After all, you appear to know what “religious obligation” means to Muslim women, right? So you have some set ideas in your head about it; a religion or faith is apparently set in stone by its founding fathers/sacred texts – is that right?

BTW it’s not a “save the burqa” campaign so don’t be facetious. No-one here expresses any sympathy with the views that the burqa symbolises; merely that they are standing up for the right to wear it. To paraphrase Voltaire, I may not like what you wear but I will defend the right to wear it.

(*Judaism and Christianity have a lot in common with Islam and each other, I mean)

I love how your concept of justice and rights is contingent on being a member of a large group, Bob. If you are a member of a small group well stuff you it is not much of an imposition.

Well forcing someone to wear a burqa is obviously wrong just as forcing them not to wear one is also wrong. However, from your perspective, if the group who were being forced to wear the burqa was a small group it was obviously right because it was not much of an imposition. Priceless.

“Well forcing someone to wear a burqa is obviously wrong just as forcing them not to wear one is also wrong. However, from your perspective, if the group who were being forced to wear the burqa was a small group it was obviously right because it was not much of an imposition. Priceless.”

My objection to the burqa is on public security grounds – because of its (undeniable) use as a means of concealing identity and weapons in many armed robberies in widely spread countries.

The issue of the small number of women muslims who choose to wear burqas demonstrates that it isn’t obligatory in the muslim religion. It also implies that such a ban would have low compliance costs – which wouldn’t be the case if overcoats and motorcycle helmets were banned since these – along with motor vehicles and other accessories – have also been used to facilitate armed robberies.

Each year, about 3000 people are killed in traffic accidents in Britain. That could be prevented if we restored old legislation requiring every motor vehicle to be preceeded by a walking person carrying a red flag. We don’t do that because the compliance costs exceed the benefits that would be achieved.

Just to gauge the level of your intolerance, Bob. What would be your response if muslims told you to get stuffed and continued to outrage you by wearing the burqa? Would you support having the garments ripped off them in the street? Mass arrests and imprisonment? What if thousands of wearers turned up at a mass rally, would you support baton charging them?

@168: “That doesn’t answer my question, alas. You helpfully defined what you mean by “religious obligations” with regards to the Muslim faith, yet refuse to do so for the two I mentioned? That seems a bit strange.”

I can’t see what useful purpose would be served by my researching to establish the faith obligations of umpteen religions when some muslim groups are actively campaigning for the burqa to be banned:

“A Canadian Muslim group wants the federal government to ban two kinds of garments, the burka and the niqab, worn by some women.

“The Muslim Canadian Congress said the garments, which cover the face, have no basis in Islam.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/08/canada-muslim-burka-niqb-ban-government.html#ixzz0wEF927ZI

Evidently, they don’t regard the burqa and niqab as obligatory.

My objections to the burqa and to the niqab are on the grounds of public security as these have (undeniably) been used to conceal identities and weapons in armed robberies in many countries.

@173

The point is Bob, it is not up to you to define what “religious obligation” means to anybody else. If someone adhering to the Wahhabist(sp) tendancy of Islam wishes to wear a burqa I’m sure they have a hadith or two up their sleeve (chortle) to back their views up. Same as any other religous faction defending its differences with other sects. So to ignore the religious dimension by constantly saying “it’s not a religious obligation” is not only missing the point but fundamentally wrong.

Yes yes, security grounds – yet oddly it is only the burqa that you seek to ban on these grounds. Once again – you do not help (an already stigmatised group of) women by criminalising them for wearing a type of cloth. There are already laws against concealed weapons, robbery etc.

“Just to gauge the level of your intolerance, Bob. What would be your response if muslims told you to get stuffed and continued to outrage you by wearing the burqa? Would you support having the garments ripped off them in the street? Mass arrests and imprisonment? What if thousands of wearers turned up at a mass rally, would you support baton charging them?”

Only a small minority of muslim women choose to wear burqas and there is plainly no religious obligation to do so since some muslim groups have actively campaigned to have them banned – see link @173.

If a guy walking from John O’Groats to Land’s End without any chothes on, who didn’t constitute a threat to anyone, can be arrested, convicted and jailed twice, I can’t see what the problem is with arresting and jailing any women seen wearing a burqa in public – since burqas are a threat to public security because of their use in armed robberies to conceal identities and weapons.

“Yes yes, security grounds – yet oddly it is only the burqa that you seek to ban on these grounds. Once again – you do not help (an already stigmatised group of) women by criminalising them for wearing a type of cloth. There are already laws against concealed weapons, robbery etc.”

As explained umpteen times previously:

Only a small minority of muslim women choose to wear burqas so the compliance cost of banning them is small – which wouldn’t be the case if overcoats and motorcycle helmets were banned since these – along with motor vehicles and other accessories – have also been used to facilitate armed robberies. And burqas are an especially effective means for initially disarming onlookers while concealing identities and weapons in the course of conducting armed robberies.

@Bob

But that is basically going against the whole innocent until proven guilty thing that we’re so fond of. You’re close as damnit to saying if someone wears a burqa they should be treated with suspicion – Orwell didn’t invent the word “clothcrime” but it fits pretty well.

I think we get your message now Bob because someone is a member of a small minority their rights don’t matter.

Incidentally, with your bizarre use of the naked rambler as somehow validating your case. Do you think if he had defended himself by saying to the Sheriff but muslims in England can wear a burqa. The Sheriff would have said (a) irrelevant or (b) a valid defence?

This festival of nudity isn’t a threat to public security http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10929582

But burqas are a threat to public security because of their use in armed robberies to conceal identities and weapons and for terrorist outrages. It is only prudent – on the basis of the much recommended precautionary principle – to treat any person wearing a burqa with suspicion.

Revealing full body scanners, have been introduced into airports this year as a security check for concealed weapons and explosives, as one way of tackling the security threat created by all-covering burqas:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html

And this is what happens:

A Muslim woman was barred from boarding a flight after she refused to undergo a full body scan for religious reasons. The passenger was passing through security at Manchester Airport when she was selected at random for a full-body scanner.

She was warned that she would be stopped from boarding the plane but she decided to forfeit her ticket to Pakistan rather than submit to the scan. Her female travelling companion also declined to step into the scanner, citing “medical reasons” for her refusal.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7048576.ece

@Bob

Ah. So Muslim women who choose to wear the burqa are guilty until proven innocent? Is that what you’re saying? And you think that’s liberal?

Liberty isn’t about everyone being 100% safe all of the time. If you want 100% security you live in a totalitarian state with a policeman outside every home and CCTV inside. There is a trade-off in liberal democracies and one of those that we have is religious tolerance. I’ve already knocked down your “it isn’t a religous obligation” argument – religions being man-made have man-made rules that any one can interpret as they wish [cf. transubstantiation].

You seem to think because the number of women who choose to wear the burqa is small then they’re fair game for legislating against. That seems petty and vindictive to me.

“I think we get your message now Bob because someone is a member of a small minority their rights don’t matter.”

Certainly, if they constitute a serious threat to public security and burqas are such a threat because of their use to facilitate armed robberies and terrorist atrocities – which probably weighed in the considerations of the Muslim Canadian Congress to campaign to have burqas banned.

Just carrying a knife in public is now a crime in Britain without any need on the part of the prosecution to prove an intent to use it. It is generally illegal to carry or possess a handgun. The British Olympic shooting team has to train abroad.

179. Bob B

‘ It is only prudent – on the basis of the much recommended precautionary principle – to treat any person wearing a burqa with suspicion. ‘

Life would be so much easier if we could just get them to wear little yellow stars. Obviously just as security precaution.

@182

Or maybe tattoos?

All those shopping malls and stores posting notices telling customers wearing hoods and helmets to stay out are infringing the civil liberties of those excluded, are they?

C’mon.

181. Bob B

‘… which probably weighed in the considerations of the Muslim Canadian Congress to campaign to have burqas banned. ‘

Did you miss this bit in your Canadian example, Bob? It does not matter who else you quote to try and support your argument. All that proves is how weak your argument. If your argument was sound it would stand by its own logic.

‘ Mohamed Elmasry, a former president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, downplayed the suggestion that the clothing presents a security risk, saying that only a minority of Muslim women in Canada wear the garments.

He said women should have the choice to cover their face if they wish.

“People feel it’s part of their identity; people feel it’s part of their culture,” he said.’

@Bob B

for the (hopefully) last time: there is a difference between what private businesses can do and the State actively legislating against something. Hence why I can happily strum my guitar in a park or on a bench but, alas, cannot take it into my local Barclays and sing “Money (That’s What I Want)” by the Beatles.

@185: “Mohamed Elmasry, a former president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, downplayed the suggestion that the clothing presents a security risk, saying that only a minority of Muslim women in Canada wear the garments.”

That was a different muslim group and he was a former president.

So what? The fact is that some muslim groups have campaigned to have the burqa banned and there are many reports from many countries – including Britain – of burqas being used by criminals to conceal identities and weapons in the course of conducting armed robberies of banks and stores.

Why would airports go to the cost of installing full body scanners this year but for the additional threat created by all-covering burqas? See the links @179.

As for this choice argument, carrying knives and handguns is not permitted. Possession of scheduled drugs is banned and their possession is an absolute offence. On the evidence from many countries, the wearing of burqas constitutes a threat to public security because of their use in armed robberies.

More from the Canadian Muslim Congress:
http://www.iheu.org/ban-burqa-canadian-muslim-view

This demonstrates just how effective the burqa is as a disguise:

“The BBC’s world affairs editor has become the only television reporter to broadcast from Taleban-held Afghanistan as the country prepares for an American attack.

“John Simpson and a cameraman were smuggled into the Nangarhar Province, near the border with Pakistan, by heavily armed smugglers.

“On the advice of their escorts, the two men donned burqas – the traditional full-length garment compulsory for all women living in Taleban-controlled Afghanistan.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/22/newsid_4073000/4073858.stm

@186: “for the (hopefully) last time: there is a difference between what private businesses can do and the State actively legislating against something. ”

Don’t be silly:

- what do you suppose would happen if banks and jewellry stores posted notices telling persons wearing burqas and niqabs to keep out?

- why do you think the governments of France and Syria regarded it as necessary to intervene and ban the wearing of burqas etc in universities – which are private institutions?

- the public at large are surely entitled to take a view on what is permissible in public places – hence the bans on smoking, carrying knives, guns, and scheduled drugs etc and presumably the reason why that guy who was walking from John O’Groats to Land’s End without any clothes was arrested, convicted and jailed twice.

Bob, this thread proves you are incapable of presenting a logical argument in favour of banning the burqa. The constant citing other people in no way strengthens your argument, it just rationalises in your mind your prejudice. You have no more right to tell people what to wear as I have to tell them to wear red socks. Since the thread is just getting repetitive, I’m out.

@Bob

You put wearing a burqa on the same level as carrying a handgun or knives? In the words of Obelix: these people are crazy.

You fail to recognise the importance of religious freedom in a liberal democracy. You ignore all views that don’t concur with your own re:religious obligation. You pretend that burqas are on par with handguns as security threats. You excuse your authoritarianism by saying “well it’s only a small minority that would be affected” (even though you are surely aware of Pastor Niemöller’s famous poem). You smear people who value liberty as “save the burqa” types, implying that standing up for the right to wear something means you agree with the ideology behind it. You pretend that because France does something then the UK should follow suit. You somehow equate rambling nude with a religious minorities dress-sense. You assume guilt before innocence but only, I repeat only, with regard to this minority of women.

All of your arguments have been demolished time and time again, Bob. You are an authoritarian at the very best, at worst you are a small-minded bigot with an irrational fear of the Other.

“Bob, this thread proves you are incapable of presenting a logical argument in favour of banning the burqa”

On the contrary – on the extensive documented evidence, you have been completely unable to deny that burqas have been used as disguises by criminals in many countries – including Britain – to conceal identities and weapons while conducting armed robberies. Burqas therefore constitute a manifest threat to public security.

“The constant citing other people in no way strengthens your argument, it just rationalises in your mind your prejudice.”

Don’t be silly. The quotes show that others in different countries – including some muslim groups – appreciate the strong arguments for banning burqas on several grounds, including the evident threat to public security.

“You have no more right to tell people what to wear as I have to tell them to wear red socks.”

Don’t be silly. Wearing red socks doesn’t constitute a threat to public security – wearing burqas does. Laws passed by Parliament restrict what is permissible in public places.

“All of your arguments have been demolished time and time again, Bob. You are an authoritarian at the very best, at worst you are a small-minded bigot with an irrational fear of the Other.”

That’s just blatant personal abuse to cover up the fact that you are unable to deny the extensive documented evidence that the wearing of burqas constitutes a manifest threat to public security because burqas have been used in many countries as a disguise by criminals to conceal identities and weapons in order to conduct armed robberies.

Huff and bluster as you may, the facts cannot dismissed.

Update – news report from July in De Spiegel

“According to a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, based in Washington, a clear majority of Germans, French, Spanish and British all support a ban [on burqas]. Most Americans however would reject such a ban.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,707251,00.html

As reported, Italy already has laws from anti-terror legislation in 1975 that prohibit men and women from covering their faces in public.

Where thos working on a premises have reason to fear being robbed, then they should be able to ask people to uncover their faces. Also where the ability to see a human face may assist in assessing the information they are providing, such as in a court of law or in a negotiation, then the face should be revealed.

Another and very recent report from the local press in London of a burqa clad robber:

A HOUNSLOW jeweller is appealing for witnesses after £160,000 of his stock was stolen by man disguised as a bhurka wearing woman.

A man posing as a woman wearing a bhurka and pushing an empty pram, tricked the owner’s father into opening the door of Rajput Jewellers, before three other men smashed their way in with baseball bats and ransacked the newly decorated shop.
http://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/west-london-news/local-hounslow-news/2010/07/29/burka-disguise-criminal-robs-hounslow-jeweller-109642-26956140/

Looks back over thread…

*headdesk*

Get help Bob.

*headdesk*

Overall I found the points, in particular comments on the piece, made in defence to lack validation and come from people too far stuck in boxes to even be able to start realising they are.

One of the comments spoke about ‘let’s ban the burkha, let’s ban this, let’s ban that, and so on and so on, until clothes are banned’ (not a direct quote, but the gist of one that was being sarcastic in intent). They are missing such a huge point here, and ironically too: society does already dictate what we wear – or more the point, that something is worn at the very least. You cannot just take to the streets naked – it’s not considered the done thing and there are laws regarding it, despite it being the attire in which we enter the world.

Nakedness is deemed an extreme – thus by default covering as much as you can must be deemed likewise also. The question is, do you judge the opposite of one ‘bad’ extreme as good by default, or both extremes bad by the simple fact they are extreme.

The aspects of wearing such clothing in certain places being inappropriate has been covered – everyone seems pretty much agreed that in certain situations the burkha cannot be worn. It is not thus ‘everyday’ clothing. Nor is it ‘safety’ clothing as say crash helmets that are also deemed inappropriate in certain scenarios.

We have seen the ban of hoodies in certain places implemented without much fuss at all – but when the issue is that of religion, the goal posts are surprise, surprise moved.

Yes, there are issues of how women forced to wear the burkha may fare under such a ban and they are valid issues.

However, let’s think for a moment about those women claiming to be empowered: I challenge anyone who believes the burkha to be empowering to put one on. The only ‘empowerments’ one can achieve is to have a psychological advantage over someone not wearing one – I can see them, they can’t see me; the other is that of feeling more pious not only over non believes, but also over those of the same faith who fail to cover themselves so fully, which can only lead to those less covered feeling pressured to become more so and also give validation to those men who wish to force women to wear them. This is not the ‘empowering’ behaviour of someone with something constructive to bring to society – these are the actions of someone who wants to feel superior to those around them in the name of God.

As for the matter of peer pressure and how it does indeed exist for ‘Western’ women. Yes, it does, but it shouldn’t – it’s bullshit, and we should be striving for a society (as many have been for many years now long gone) where it exists as little as possible, not encouraging the same in another culture simply because we have failed to address it adequately in our own.

The burkha is anti-social, often used to demean, serves no practical purpose, can be used as the perfect disguise for illegal activities and is a throw back to dark, savage ways – those who call for it NOT to be banned seem reluctant to let those days go, while not being prepared to admit it.

As for the matter of Freedom . . . ask yourself where, if anywhere, you draw the ‘Freedom’ line, and having decided consider the society in which it would leave you.

“The burkha is anti-social, often used to demean, serves no practical purpose . . ”

But it’s patently immensely useful to armed robbers as this report in the Washington Post from 11 August shows:

“A man wearing what was said to be a burqa robbed a bank Tuesday in Montgomery County, county police reported. . . Police said the robbery occurred about 4:20 p.m. at a TD Bank branch in the 3100 block of Briggs Chaney Road in the Silver Spring area. They said a man entered, showed a gun and demanded money. He received an undetermined amount and fled.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/montgomery/man-in-burqa-robs-md-bank.htmlhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/montgomery/man-in-burqa-robs-md-bank.html

@ Bob B: perhaps you should have read the whole sentence (the one you quoted part of) before commenting . . .

The link @196 no longer works – for some unknown reason. Try this instead:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/montgomery/man-in-burqa-robs-md-bank.html

This is an alternative source for a news report of the robbery:
http://www.gazette.net/stories/08112010/montnew182600_32549.php