Belgian Burkha ban for only 30 women?

[bub]

Furthermore, I do not want to make you believe that Belgium is a totally tolerant society, as we also have racist parties (such as the Vlaams Belang, even if they can't be openly racist anymore).

But I would like to highlight the fact that Belgium in general is not "islamophobic" or "anti-muslim": we are probably the only European country that funds imams, and we are the first European country to allow a veiled deputee to enter a parliament.

Why would a political party that puts a veiled woman on its electoral list, choose to ban the burqa for islamophobic reasons?

 

[alexa]

You should read the list of arguments that have been given in the Chamber of Representants, they explain why burqas should not be tolerated.

There are 3 main sets of arguments:
- burqa symbolizes the inferiority of women

For western women whether Caucasian or other who choose to wear them this is not true

(and in many cases they are forced to wear that)

you have provided no evidence of forcing. Belgium ought to have support available for women who need help from any kind of domestic violence or oppression, not just go after 25 or 215 or however number there are, or as Infinite Chaos has already suggested with such a low number just go around them all and check they are not being abused.

- burqa prevents any form of communication or integration and isolates them from the rest of the society

That is true and that is the reason most people do not like them.
I think it is fine not to have burka's worn in schools and in most places of work as communication is needed. After that, if it goes with a woman's faith, that is her right. Lots of people isolate themselves for a variety of reasons.

- it is dangerous to let people whose face is covered to enter the public space (someone here gave the example of allowing people wearing balaclava in banks)

Give us a break. I mentioned bank robbers. This law is not about bank robbers. It is about a few women who believe that wearing a burka is right for them.

This is a good excuse but it is only an excuse. If someone wants to use a gun they will hide it under a big coat. No one needs a burka to be a suicide bomber.

Well it's someone from an internet forum. If you look at the debate that happened in the Belgian Chamber of Representants, George Dallemagne (great CDH deputee) talks about "quelques centaines de femmes" (a few hundreds). And as I have said above, I lived in the center Brussels during 3 years, until june of last year, and when I was buying some beer at the supermarket I could regularly see women with burqas. Not once, not twice, regularly.

yes I know that was a forum. So you see women in Burkas when buying beer and I see them in fashion shops, this must be telling us something.

Look at what you have said. You saw women wearing burkas not just in Brussels but at a particular location. Not all over Brussels, just when buying beer.

 

[bub]

Look at what you have said. You saw women wearing burkas not just in Brussels but at a particular location. Not all over Brussels, just when buying beer.

I wasn't clear: I saw them at the supermarket. I was buying beer, they were buying food, not alcohol.

As for them being forced, it's a parliamentarian who cited a poll. But it's also common sense, have you never heard about muslim girls commiting suicide or being killed by their father/brother because they wore western clothes or dated western guys?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

You should read the arguments given in the Chamber of Representants by all the different parties, instead of assuming that it is a racially motivated law.

--

There are 3 main sets of arguments:
- burqa symbolizes the inferiority of women (and in many cases they are forced to wear that)
- burqa prevents any form of communication or integration and isolates them from the rest of the society
- it is dangerous to let people whose face is covered to enter the public space (someone here gave the example of allowing people wearing balaclava in banks) --

Thanks bub, I did scan the arguments - admittedly not in huge detail.

- burqa symbolizes the inferiority of women (and in many cases they are forced to wear that) - firstly that is a western perception, a ban will simply encourage some muslims to test the new law if it continues into practice.
Also, if women are forced to wear them and people have proof then surely the abusers of those women can be easily identified?

- burqa prevents any form of communication or integration and isolates them from the rest of the society - I've seen (also on TV) a burkha clad woman defend why she wore her burkha in a school when the male teacher she worked with was in the room. In her case, I defended her sacking as it was a school and her actions undermined the teacher - however she communicated her points really well on TV even while wearing a burkha.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTNWf5Q2Zo"]YouTube- Muslim support teacher suspended for wearing a veil in class[/nomedia] - Alshah Azmi

As for being isolated from society - women not learing the local language or being able to get jobs is a far more serious barrier to integration.

it is dangerous to let people whose face is covered to enter the public space (someone here gave the example of allowing people wearing balaclava in banks) - so why aren't policemen banned from wearing masks if they are on anti terror duty? Or why are nuns allowed to wear headcovers or will the Belgian law also stop nuns wearing headwear that obscures identification?

As for banks - they are NOT public spaces. Banks are (as far as I can recall) private industry and private ground.

 

[alexa]

I wasn't clear: I saw them at the supermarket. I was buying beer, they were buying food, not alcohol.

I appreciate that. My point was that what you had found appears to have been a hub of them. If you had told me they were everywhere in Brussels that might have said something else but in one location does not say so much.

As for them being forced, it's a parliamentarian who cited a poll. But it's also common sense, have you never heard about muslim girls commiting suicide or being killed by their father/brother because they wore western clothes or dated western guys?

Of course we have a problem with I think it is about 10 'honour' killings a year. Not always Muslim.

That is why we also have help for people who may have trouble with forced marriages.

Bub, I am not aware that there is a relationship between this and Burkas.

 

[alexa]

Furthermore, I do not want to make you believe that Belgium is a totally tolerant society, as we also have racist parties (such as the Vlaams Belang, even if they can't be openly racist anymore).

But I would like to highlight the fact that Belgium in general is not "islamophobic" or "anti-muslim": we are probably the only European country that funds imams, and we are the first European country to allow a veiled deputee to enter a parliament.

Why would a political party that puts a veiled woman on its electoral list, choose to ban the burqa for islamophobic reasons?

Bub, there is I think a translation problem. This woman is not veiled. She is wearing a headscarf or hijab.

What I find strange is that there would even be a questions about allowing her. We do not have any Muslim women wear Hijabs in Parliament presumably because the right people have not come forward, been selected and got elected. We do though have several Muslim male MP's and indeed at least one non hijab wearing female Muslim MP.

It is very possible to decide to choose someone just to give the impression you are not prejudiced by having the token one.

I am not saying it is the case but it could be. Europe imo is at the moment on a knife's edge with how it is going with Islamophobia - and I don't like the word either but you know what I mean.

It is about ideas which people buy into. They sound right. People accept them and then a little more. It is very easy.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

As for them being forced, it's a parliamentarian who cited a poll. But it's also common sense, have you never heard about muslim girls commiting suicide or being killed by their father/brother because they wore western clothes or dated western guys?

Good point, and herein lies the whole crux of the matter.

Similar criticisms as we see of Belgium above were levelled against France a few years back when the teenage daughters of an atheist and a Jew decided overnight it would be trendy to be muslim and challenged the ban on headscarves in public schools. When French girls of North African origin are questioned on this issue, the overwhelming majority do not want to be veiled. Those who otherwise have the veil forced on them by fathers and brothers love the school ban because it gives them "time off" and what's more, it's been shown that in class girls tend to express themselves more freely in seminars in subjects such as philosophy, sociology, political science etc. than they do in private schools where being veiled is permitted. I've known and worked with muslim women from many backgrounds over the years and the ones who would wear a veil by choice are a miniscule minority. Frankly, as somebody who has fought sexism all her life, women who would choose to wear the burqa are either afraid of the consequences of not doing so, have little self-worth due to a lifetime of indoctrination, or are quite simply, fruitloops. As for the few converted western women who jump on this bandwagon and choose the burqa, I equate them with the friend I had in my teenage years who as an art student chose to walk around town in an outfit she'd made out of a potato sack. It's called making a statement out of sheer insecurity. Such women would be better off on self-esteem building workshops.

 

[alexa]

I've known and worked with muslim women from many backgrounds over the years and the ones who would wear a veil by choice are a miniscule minority. Frankly, as somebody who has fought sexism all her life, women who would choose to wear the burqa are either afraid of the consequences of not doing so, have little self-worth due to a lifetime of indoctrination, or are quite simply, fruitloops. As for the few converted western women who jump on this bandwagon and choose the burqa, I equate them with the friend I had in my teenage years who as an art student chose to walk around town in an outfit she'd made out of a potato sack. It's called making a statement out of sheer insecurity. Such women would be better off on self-esteem building workshops.

This thread is about the banning of the right of the very few who choose as adults to wear the burka to do so, the reasons for that ban and the possible implications.

I find it sad that some feminists forget when dealing with Muslims, the basis of feminism which is about empowering of women and instead feel extremely superior and that they should act paternally to them.

I think it would be better if feminists remained faithful to their belief in empowering women.

The idea that Western Muslims would not work towards their own empowerment seems to lack any belief at all in the ability of women.

British women Muslims are doing this.

Muslim women in Britain are fighting for access to the Mosque and control of their lives.
It's a dispute that could dramatically change the face of Islam in Britain.


...when people think about Muslims they make the link between subservient women, shady mosques, terrorism and a resistence to ingetrate but for a new generation of British Muslim women it is time for a change, they want to turn society on it's head and change those views forever.

Qardawi Slams Un-Islamic Village Idiots Who Run Mosques & Do Not Let Women In! | MPACUK – Empowerment through political participation

The quote is from the video which you can see there.

Change takes time, just like it did with the empowerment and equality of women in general but they are making inroads and it will happen.

In the meantime bringing in laws to stop a few women from dressing as they choose is probably as you put it - total disrespect for the women, supreme indulgence in feeling superior and what you did not say, denial of basic human rights.

Beyond the Burqa | Human Rights Watch

 

[Gardener]

I've known and worked with muslim women from many backgrounds over the years and the ones who would wear a veil by choice are a miniscule minority. Frankly, as somebody who has fought sexism all her life, women who would choose to wear the burqa are either afraid of the consequences of not doing so, have little self-worth due to a lifetime of indoctrination, or are quite simply, fruitloops. As for the few converted western women who jump on this bandwagon and choose the burqa, I equate them with the friend I had in my teenage years who as an art student chose to walk around town in an outfit she'd made out of a potato sack. It's called making a statement out of sheer insecurity. Such women would be better off on self-esteem building workshops.

Be prepared to be called an "Islamophobe", which is the word used to describe anybody who is actually concerned about the welfare of Muslim women instead of condemning them to a life as chattel.

Ultimately, which is the true degree of racism here, though -- holding the value that all people deserve the same treatment no matter their race or ethnicity, or singling out half of the members of one particular race or ethnicity as unworthy. I say it is the latter, myself.

 

[gunner]

Quite

If a women (or man for that matter) wants to wear a burka or veil they should be able to. If they dont they shold and do have the right not to.

A little simplistic. There are definitely a percentage who, for whatever reason, normally a draconian family structure-have that right of 'choice' taken from them at a very early age.
For me its how many, in percentage terms, it effects. If anyone's suggesting otherwise they are naive to say the least.
That is not to suggest 'all' those wearing a Burkha are forced into it.

Paul

 

[Australianlibertarian]

This thread is about the banning of the right of the very few who choose as adults to wear the burka to do so, the reasons for that ban and the possible implications.

I find it sad that some feminists forget when dealing with Muslims, the basis of feminism which is about empowering of women and instead feel extremely superior and that they should act paternally to them.

I think it would be better if feminists remained faithful to their belief in empowering women.

The idea that Western Muslims would not work towards their own empowerment seems to lack any belief at all in the ability of women.

British women Muslims are doing this.


Qardawi Slams Un-Islamic Village Idiots Who Run Mosques & Do Not Let Women In! | MPACUK – Empowerment through political participation

The quote is from the video which you can see there.

Change takes time, just like it did with the empowerment and equality of women in general but they are making inroads and it will happen.

In the meantime bringing in laws to stop a few women from dressing as they choose is probably as you put it - total disrespect for the women, supreme indulgence in feeling superior and what you did not say, denial of basic human rights.

Beyond the Burqa | Human Rights Watch

I'm torn between your position and Urethra Franklins. As a secularist, I find much of the veil, head scarf and burka a throwback to another age and a sign of patriarchy. But on the other hand I am worried that if government can regulate one aspect of a person's clothing what next? Human rights are important.

How do we deal with this issue? I really don't know. Part of me hates the religious segregation, but then on the other hand I think that in part the Islamists and religious conservatives may be defeated if their daughters can get an education even if entails wearing the headscarf.

Mmmm, may be Primary Schools (elementary) and Secondary Schools should ban such practices, because the children attending are not yet adults and thus there are a questions about informed consent. However unlike Turkey I don't see the problem with the headscarf at university.

As for the Niqab or burqa, I think maybe a dozen women wear it in the area that I am living in (Brunswick, Melbourne) and I will admit and be frankly honest, I find it strange, quaint and dehumanising. If one of these women asked me for directions, would I be rude and tell her to **** off? No I would happily help her. But for some reason I don't believe that these particular women will be going out of their way to ask me for directions.

Anyway, very complex issue.

But I would add a final comment. Progressives and feminists should be wary of paternalism (I agree), but even when feminism is dealing with issues facing western(nised) women there is still a degree of paternalism involved. Aka you shouldn't do that or imitate that, or consent to that as doing so reinforces patriarchal structures, condones misogyny etc. Now I have no issue against paternalism per se. All I am stating is that it is inherent within any progressive movement which is critical of how people or society conducts itself, that their is going to be a degree of paternalism.

 

[alexa]

I'm torn between your position and Urethra Franklins. As a secularist, I find much of the veil, head scarf and burka a throwback to another age and a sign of patriarchy. But on the other hand I am worried that if government can regulate one aspect of a person's clothing what next? Human rights are important.

How do we deal with this issue? I really don't know. Part of me hates the religious segregation, but then on the other hand I think that in part the Islamists and religious conservatives may be defeated if their daughters can get an education even if entails wearing the headscarf.

Mmmm, may be Primary Schools (elementary) and Secondary Schools should ban such practices, because the children attending are not yet adults and thus there are a questions about informed consent. However unlike Turkey I don't see the problem with the headscarf at university.

Well we allow girls to wear head scarves and anything else is up to the school but as far as I know nobody allows the kids to wear more than this. Several years ago a girl took her school to court against her Muslim headmistress wanting to wear the Nijab and originally won but it went back to court on appeal and the school won. Now I think no one can wear more than a head scarf which doesn't bother me at all. Maybe it is just about getting used to them. The kids seem happy in them and that's enough for me. Some kids wear them and some do not. A lot do and a lot of families will insist on their girls wearing it but parents always insist on something.

As for the Niqab or burqa, I think maybe a dozen women wear it in the area that I am living in (Brunswick, Melbourne) and I will admit and be frankly honest, I find it strange, quaint and dehumanising. If one of these women asked me for directions, would I be rude and tell her to **** off? No I would happily help her. But for some reason I don't believe that these particular women will be going out of their way to ask me for directions.

I don't like it either and have only seen 2 women wearing it. A Western woman tried wearing one for a week and apart from it being unbelievably uncomfortable, she found herself subject to abuse from all and sundry so the woman would do well to meet you. The funny thing is that when they get speaking they seem like fairly ordinary people who really believe in what they are doing. Sounds like a bit of a hair shirt trip to me but knowing a woman wants to, I feel I must respect her right.

Obviously any forcing would come under abuse and hopefully the woman would be able to find help.

Anyway, very complex issue.

But I would add a final comment. Progressives and feminists should be wary of paternalism (I agree), but even when feminism is dealing with issues facing western(nised) women there is still a degree of paternalism involved. Aka you shouldn't do that or imitate that, or consent to that as doing so reinforces patriarchal structures, condones misogyny etc. Now I have no issue against paternalism per se. All I am stating is that it is inherent within any progressive movement which is critical of how people or society conducts itself, that their is going to be a degree of paternalism.

I see your point. I think good feminism respects the woman and her choices and is there for her.

It has been interesting however finding out about young Muslim women wanting to raise their position, it will move to equality. This does not surprise me as a lot of these women only moved back into Islam after 9/11. They are going and talking to newer immigrants who feel they should be 'in the home' or 'behind the man' and giving them ideas that 'maybe not'. I don't think it is paternalism. More consciousness raising and it has to be done by Muslim's themselves. Here's some more working for change.

Muslim Suffragettes' Women Only Jihad | MPACUK – Empowerment through political participation

I think these are the changes which a lot of European Goverments have not forseen would happen but are the kind of changes which I believe will reorganise Islam and help to get it as a religion which can live happily with us.

Unfortunately when actions are taken like the Burka ban which does appear as an attack on Muslims as so few wear it, it tends to put them more back within themselves and more likely to be more obviously Muslim.

Anyway I am happy to see these changes in the UK. The original documentary was in 2006 so I missed it then, but I also think it is to be expected. Women born and raised here did not grow up to be second class citizens. Good luck to them.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

I'm amused at the total absence of screeching feminist uproar over the lack of even basic womens' rights in many Islamic enclaves even here.

I suppose 'cultural' reasons are why such abuses are usually kept hushed. Scarcely are such reactionary outrages shown on television, and when they are Muslims bring the police in, as with Channel 4's mosques documentary.

Andrew Anthony: When did the police start collaring television? | Comment is free | The Observer


I shouldn't take much notice of Muslims, leastways ones making a noise. They play victim all the time, unlike the silent sufferers of the burka tyranny:

Russia: Muslims Upset By State Symbols - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2010

Eurozine - Muslims and the decadent West - Jörg Lau



But never mind, there's always art...

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3HzPaixa2s"]YouTube- DRAW MUHAMMAD DAY IS NOT CANCELED[/nomedia]


Why Western Art is Unique, and Why Muslim Immigration Threatens It | The Brussels Journal (not much chance of Enlightenment over the burka then. Best to ban it.)

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Scarcely are such reactionary outrages shown on television, and when they are Muslims bring the police in, as with Channel 4's mosques documentary.

Andrew Anthony: When did the police start collaring television? | Comment is free | The Observer --

No you don't.

Please show us proof that muslims called the police in to complain about the Dispatches programme. The link you provided clearly states that none of those interviewed complained about their portrayal and were given right to reply by the programme makers.
Dispatches even went further after Channel 4 backed them during this case and commissioned further investigations when a female muslim was sent into mosques to uncover extremism.

 

[Alvin T. Grey]

If they merely wanted to ban things that covered people's faces (which I don't agree with) then that's what they should have done. Of course, that would include winter scarves and other cold-weather face and head protection gear. And full face helmets.

You can remove those items if asked by a male police officer. Hell, you (should) remove your sun glasses if stopped by the police.
A woman wearing a burka can't. And that is the security risk.

 

[bub]

Thanks bub, I did scan the arguments - admittedly not in huge detail.

- burqa symbolizes the inferiority of women (and in many cases they are forced to wear that) - firstly that is a western perception, a ban will simply encourage some muslims to test the new law if it continues into practice.
Also, if women are forced to wear them and people have proof then surely the abusers of those women can be easily identified?

That's a good point, I don't really know. Last week in France they caught a man with several wives and who forced one of them to wear a burqa, but there has been an outcry and some people actually defend the guy

As for being isolated from society - women not learing the local language or being able to get jobs is a far more serious barrier to integration.

Often the burqa is not an "isolated" thing, it's associated with extremism, which is more likely to happen with newcomers who are not integrated; I guess many of those who wear a burqa don't speak French or Dutch

it is dangerous to let people whose face is covered to enter the public space (someone here gave the example of allowing people wearing balaclava in banks) - so why aren't policemen banned from wearing masks if they are on anti terror duty?

Because they're policemen, and their masks are necessary. Like policemen can drive too fast or use violence in order to arrest criminals.

Or why are nuns allowed to wear headcovers or will the Belgian law also stop nuns wearing headwear that obscures identification?

Nuns do not cover their faces with masks, and besides I've seen more women with burqas than nuns in my life.

As for banks - they are NOT public spaces. Banks are (as far as I can recall) private industry and private ground.

that was an example

 

[Infinite Chaos]

You can remove those items if asked by a male police officer. Hell, you (should) remove your sun glasses if stopped by the police.
A woman wearing a burka can't. And that is the security risk.

And a female police officer can carry out a body search or a simple pat down. If there are no female officers around and the situation demands it - a male officer could do the pat-down.

Before RoP comes on and screams that no male officer would pat down a female muslim - it's the same risk if a male officer had no alternative than to pat down a non muslim in a search for drugs or weapons.

That's a good point, I don't really know. Last week in France they caught a man with several wives and who forced one of them to wear a burqa, but there has been an outcry and some people actually defend the guy

Was the outcry the burka or his polygamy?

-- Often the burqa is not an "isolated" thing, it's associated with extremism, which is more likely to happen with newcomers who are not integrated; I guess many of those who wear a burqa don't speak French or Dutch

We had the IRA here for years, terrorists who learned to dress as the rest of society. If burka's are an identifier for extremism - why ban them? It's like waving a flag over your house to the security forces and saying "here I am!"

Same if the threat was violence to the women wearers - most wife beaters try really hard to not draw any attention to themselves.

-- Because they're policemen, and their masks are necessary. Like policemen can drive too fast or use violence in order to arrest criminals.

The police have to justify their use of excessive speed and violence.

-- Nuns do not cover their faces with masks, and besides I've seen more women with burqas than nuns in my life.

Heavy headwear still prohibits identification if that's the problem.

 

[rivrrat]

You can remove those items if asked by a male police officer. Hell, you (should) remove your sun glasses if stopped by the police.
A woman wearing a burka can't. And that is the security risk.

If questioned by the police for some reason, they MUST remove anything covering their face. Just like everyone else in the world. If you can make them not wear a burka at all, then surely you can make them remove it for purposes of identification if being questioned by the police.


They can also get a female officer. Then she can.

So no, no security risk.

 

[Alvin T. Grey]

If questioned by the police for some reason, they MUST remove anything covering their face. Just like everyone else in the world. If you can make them not wear a burka at all, then surely you can make them remove it for purposes of identification if being questioned by the police.


They can also get a female officer. Then she can.

So no, no security risk.

Thats not going to work at a traffic stop. Secondly, it is seen as being akin to a strip search, as such it can't be performed at the side of the road.

 

[Alvin T. Grey]

And a female police officer can carry out a body search or a simple pat down. If there are no female officers around and the situation demands it - a male officer could do the pat-down.

Before RoP comes on and screams that no male officer would pat down a female muslim - it's the same risk if a male officer had no alternative than to pat down a non muslim in a search for drugs or weapons.

A pat down does not confirm identity.

We had the IRA here for years, terrorists who learned to dress as the rest of society. If burka's are an identifier for extremism - why ban them? It's like waving a flag over your house to the security forces and saying "here I am!"

Same if the threat was violence to the women wearers - most wife beaters try really hard to not draw any attention to themselves.



The police have to justify their use of excessive speed and violence.



Heavy headwear still prohibits identification if that's the problem.

Interesting point. It's ill advised to wear a balaklava (ski-mask)in public in NI.

Same reason.

And it can get you arrested in the south.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhmhgbqleyid/rss2/

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Please show us proof that muslims called the police in to complain about the Dispatches programme.

Righty-ho and away we go.


Trumped-up charges of 'incitement to wacial hatwed' were made after Ofcom received just 350 complaints. I can guess who from.

Police accuse Channel 4 of distorting film on radical Muslim preachers | Mail Online


Apparently the 'Muslim Community' was heaving with rage at the exposure: Islamist radicals: Complain early, complain often… – Telegraph Blogs


We can take it that Muslims and the leftist allies complained to Ofcom, with opposite numbers in the police deciding to be the law and take 'action'. It was investigated by a Muslim, as mentioned by many commenters.

E.g. http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/undercover-mosq.html



Got to uphold 'alternative cultuwal values', well until they're exposed. (Or even after): [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnOdD46WI0M"]YouTube- This is what Muslim Children are taught in Britain[/nomedia]


And the volatile Labour 'lord' Ahmed likes that place?



Never mind what Ofcom says, we've got Tolewance to perpetuate:

Ofcom rejects police complaints over Channel 4's Undercover Mosque | Media | guardian.co.uk



But with the truth behind you, you can take on the world, even the corrupt monoliths infesting the rest of the neo-Establishment:

Religious Watch: The Full Story



Channel 4 was vindicated after the climbdown:

'Undercover Mosque' makers to sue police for libel - Media, News - The Independent

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641316095




I think we need a bit of backbone, as the FBI demonstrates:

http://info-wars.org/2009/03/22/fbi-planting-spies-in-us-mosques-muslim-groups-say/

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

PS:

But at the end of the day, to pre-empt any wacky accusations of Islamophobia spat my way, I can't do worse than close by saying that it's the Liberal Establishment who get my genuine hatred compared to the oppribrium stirred by the Islamic extremists.

Certain Muslims may play up and make their presence more than felt, but only because they're allowed to. They must be shown the line for now but the Left must be shown the door. (And at least be stressed right out of their heads on the way for what they've done to the nation.)

 

[Andalublue]

Trumped-up charges of 'incitement to wacial hatwed' were made after Ofcom received just 350 complaints. I can guess who from.

And C4 received 1023 further complaints, making it the most complained about programme of that month. Good for Channel 4 that they take the complaints of viewers seriously!

The Press Complaints Commission received 22,000 complaints about Jan Moir's homophobic column on the death of Stephen Gateley and guess what, no action was taken by or against the Daily Mail; Moir's still spouting her bigotry. So much for the responsibility of the 'free' press in Britain.

 

[rivrrat]

Thats not going to work at a traffic stop. Secondly, it is seen as being akin to a strip search, as such it can't be performed at the side of the road.

I never said THAT would work. I said you make them take it off. Period.

If it's akin to a strip search, then the new law is akin to forcing them to walk around nude all the time.

IMO, better for *everyone* if they simply have to abide by the same laws everyone else does and remove any coverings if they are questioned by the police for any reason. There's no more need to ban the burka for "safety" than there is to ban hats and sunglasses or coats with high collars, or scarves.

See? no new law required, and no trampling on people's rights to wear what they wish.

 

[Alvin T. Grey]

I never said THAT would work. I said you make them take it off. Period.

If it's akin to a strip search, then the new law is akin to forcing them to walk around nude all the time.

IMO, better for *everyone* if they simply have to abide by the same laws everyone else does and remove any coverings if they are questioned by the police for any reason. There's no more need to ban the burka for "safety" than there is to ban hats and sunglasses or coats with high collars, or scarves.

See? no new law required, and no trampling on people's rights to wear what they wish.

It is akin to making them walk around in the raw. That's the point. By making it law and having an open door policy they are quite free to migrate somewhere else. I police officer can ask you to remove your glasses, hat scarf etc and you will. If the attitude to those particular items changed then a law may be required to ban them too. But thus far it is not an issue hence no law.

And BTW, it is the same law for everyone. Non muslim women can't wear a burka either.