For the right to wear the burqa (and the right not to)
Posted on Friday 16 July, 2010
Filed Under Society
OF COURSE the state has no business telling people what to wear, and of course the French parliament’s 355-1 decision to ban the wearing of full face covering in public was motivated primarily by racism towards Muslims.
On those considerations alone, the move should be resolutely opposed in France, and certainly not be emulated elsewhere. But for leftists simply to leave the matter at that – as most British radical commentators have – surely smacks of what comrades used to call an undialectical approach.
It remains the case that both the niqab and a fortiori the burqa are deeply objectionable from any rational, feminist or libertarian point of view. They represent the oppression of women through the symbolic medium of black textiles.
Whether Muslim women don these garments through free choice, through coercion, or because they have internalised their long-term subjugation does not change this underlying reality.
Often the justification is advanced that women have to be covered, for fear that they will otherwise arouse men. In other words, they must be penalised for my gender’s ostensible lack of self control. It is essentially a variation on the old ‘she was asking for it, your honour’ defence once popular with rapists.
In one novel twist on the theme, Iranian cleric Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi has even warned that chicks brazenly flashing their hair all over the shop leads to dangerous extramarital nooky, and thereby increases the risk of earthquakes.
Once rare in Europe, the practice of veiling has only become common as the result of the efforts of the Saudi state in recent decades to proselytise for its ultra-puritanical brand of wahhabism.
In many countries, the wearing of the burqa is imposed by fear. In Iran, women can be arrested for failure to comply with dress codes. In Pakistan, Kashmir and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have gone blind after having acid thrown in their faces for going about unveiled.
An Iraqi feminist organisation claimed in 2007 that on average, 15 women a month were murdered in Basra for the same offence. Let me run that one past you slowly: 15 women a month. Murdered. In just one city.
There have been accounts of sanctions short of these extremes in Muslim communities in this country. Giving the missus or the daughter a good lumping for getting stroppy is no more acceptable.
It needs to be stressed here that Islam imposes no religious requirement for either the burqa or the niqab, or even the headscarf, for that matter. Traditional Islamic texts simply instruct women to dress modestly.
As I have said, it does boil down to a matter of choice and of course women have the right to select their wardrobe without the intervention of governments, parents or partners. That goes for the burqa, ripped fishnets and slutty red lipstick, or flowery frocks from Laura Ashley alike.
But I’d be somewhat more impressed if some of those who have made clear how appalled they are with the French decision would explicitly state their solidarity with the acid victims. Have they really nothing to say on the topic?
The correct approach is the one advanced by the Belgian far left in last month’s election contest:
non aux lois d’interdiction du port du foulard à l’école ou du niqab dans l’espace public: ni obligation, ni interdiction!
No ban, but no obligation either. Sounds just about right to me.
<<Go back
Comments
140 Responses to “For the right to wear the burqa (and the right not to)”
Leave a Reply
This is certainly a tricky issue for the left.Speaking p ersonally I find myself in a difficult position.As a baby boomer growing up in a working class environment casual racism and bigotry was the norm in my youth. I am still proud of the fact that I rejected this nonsense at a very early age and particularely after a youthful spell of hippy travelling became a confirmed internationalist. In recentt times however when confronted with islamic culture and burka wearing women I find myself having thoughts worthy of Alf Garnett in his heyday. Islamaphobia? I don’t think so. Racism cetainly not. I just see this culture as an affront to my values as a secular leftist and fail to understand why so many on the left defend this bollocks when there are so many more pressing issues worthy of attention.
Please comrade Osler — stop allowing comments on your blog. The systematically distorted communication complex that exists here is fuckkinG mindfuck shit. It is well mental and shit. There is probably courses at college about it and shit. It is all against my human rights and shit.
wot do you think? This is wot i reckon.
http://www.reportr.net/2008/03/25/mitchell-and-webb-ask-what-do-you-reckon/
Metaphorical and symbolic language — wow — Do the norms of communication–which I assume to relate to postulates of individual autonomy, the right of free inquiry and the untrammeled pursuit of truth, norms of rationality, and shit like that apply here? i think maybe not. DELETE CUNTS and all that shit.
Michael Osler – is it possible that the powers that be have made an issue out of what Muslims wear so as to distract people from “many more pressing issues worthy of attention”? Incidentally, you are not the first liberal to have been mugged by the mere sight of something foreign to your “values”. Even Hitler claimed to be some kind of liberal until he saw a Chasidic Jew in Vienna.
James Bloodworth – “are muslims a race now”? No, no one is a race now or ever. Jews are not semites and there is no such things as semitism and yet you write about “antisemitism”. Racism is discrimination aimed at people whose identity is derived largely from their descent. Your disclaiming of racism is the same as antisemites who claim they can’t be antisemitic because they are semitic themselves. And your claim that no one chooses to wear a burka is too presumptuous to take seriously.
“Racism is discrimination aimed at people whose identity is derived largely from their descent.”
Racism is discrimination based on unalterable skin colour just as homophobia is based on unalterable sexuality. Religion is a choice. Being a Muslim is a choice.
“And your claim that no one chooses to wear a burka is too presumptuous to take seriously.”
That’s why I asked for examples of women who “choose” to wear the burka. So you have some examples then??
“Is it possible that the powers that be have made an issue out of what Muslims wear so as to distract people from “many more pressing issues worthy of attention”?”
It’s funny how liberals accuse those of wishing to liberate Muslim women of “racism” yet they themselves never cease in claiming that there are “more pressing concerns” than the rights of Muslim women.
Levi9909 – Yes I accept your point about the possibility of islamic attire distracting attention from other issues. The Hitler comparison however was totally unjustified on so many levels. If expressing a genuine opinion results in being accused of sharing the views of one of recent historys worst genocidal maniacs what is the point of having a debate at all.
Michael Osler. The banning of the burqa has nothing to do with distractions. You would have to define what the distraction is and for what purpose. This is an issue of freedom and removing the power of men over woman. It should not be a problem for socialists. Socialists should have been campaigning decades ago to put a stop this absurdity. Why are the men not covered I ask?
Well said, Michael Osler. Are you Dave’s brother or father? And who are tehse people using so-called Islamophobia as a distraction? I’d say it is the so-called left. Trying to swell their pathetic numbers by latching on to disaffected youth but not explaining socialism or internationalism to them properly. Two issues: a)is the burka a good thing in itself? and b) is the state right to ban it? As a feminist socialist one would have to say it is not a good thing and even if a woman chooses to wear it, and some do, it is still a spit in the eye of the millions of women over the years who have fought very hard for political and social freedoms. Should the state ban it? We are all familiar with teh argumetns about the capitalist state infering in private lives. I agree with Andrew who agrees with teh Belgians. Who the fuck could go around arging that the Burka (and I would say the hijab as well)is a good thing? It should give socialists and feminists the opportunity to say why it is a bad thing. I sympathise with Robert, and I think that professions such as medicine, law and the civil service should impose a strict dress code with no burkas. What gets me is the hypocrisy. If these people were really religious they would not be working in a mixed hospital, ministering to male patients or even out of their house without a male guardian. In Palmers Green there is a colony of Islam4UK and I often see burka clad women wandering around. They are not accompanied by men which is actually against their religion, so much for being immutable. Obviously, immutable means what suits you at the time. You can’t leave Islam by the way, it is a capital offence. Even in Egypt (one of the moderner countries), anyone has the right to kill a person who has declared they have left Islam, an apostate. A few years ago in Afghanistan there was a hooha because an Afghani man decided to convert to Shristianity. He was sentenced to death by the courts and after a lot of diplomatic pressure, the Germans gave him asylum and the Afghanis agreed to let him go. That is why those very few people who are prepared to publically call themselves ‘ex-Muslims’ are so brave.
Michael Osler – I do truly apologise for the offence caused but I think you’re being a little oversensitive. I was merely pointing out that many reactionaries claim to have been liberals prior to being assailed by something that offended them. Anyway, I gather I lose the argument on points because I was the first to invoke Hitler. Must try harder! and I will in future.
James Bloodworth – Being a Muslim in most cases is as much a choice as being a Jew in most cases. You are happy to use the expression “antisemitism” which most people define as racism against Jews except in fairness to you you might be using it to distinguish it from racism based on skin colour. You dodged that bit of my point so I don’t know why you use the expression antisemitism.
You are defining racism as discrimination based on skin colour but that is not the only definition. Strictly speaking antisemitism, islamophobia, orangeism and zionism are all forms of sectarianism but sectarianism is a form of racism. The reason that they are a form of racism, much like discrimination based on skin colour is that the descent element of identities based mostly on descent is no more a matter of choice than skin colour. Of course Jews and Muslims have more identity choices than people defined as black or white but that doesn’t mean that discrimination against them is not racist. For example, Gilad Atzmon says that if you are Jewish then you should renounce your Jewish identity if you claim to be anti-zionist. That is racist because it makes a demand of Jews that is not made of others.
Re your ludicrous point about examples of women who want to wear burkas or the like, if I was to go around asking women why they wear what they do that would be racial and sexual harassment so I won’t be doing it. But there have been cases that you will know of where women have gone to court for the right to wear some Muslim garment or other. They have gone to court to uphold or enforce a right of theirs.
The only people arguing against Muslim women having the same rights as everyone else are the people who say that they should be forbidden from wearing certain religious garments. The post was clear and so was I in saying that there should be no prohibition and no compulsion when it comes to forms of attire. I use that expression because it is yet another way of putting the same case that has been made many times now in this thread and in the post so neither you nor anyone else has any excuse for misunderstanding my position.
It’s interesting that you claim to be interested in women’s rights and yet you use the word “liberal” as a putdown. I don’t think you’re concerned for women’s rights at all.
Beastno666: You meant to insult James Bloodworth with your ‘liberal’ remark. Michael Osler never used the world ‘liberal’ in any of his postings. Get the object of your scorn right.
levi9909. You clearly are not concerned about women’s rights. The burqa was imposed on women by men for the satisfaction of men. Women had no say in the matter. Women that wear this garb have become institutionalised over the centuries and think it is the norm.
Levi9909 – Fair comment mate no offence taken. Sewer – For the record I am not related to Dave. Not unless you go back about 2 centuries to rural Norfolk where it appears all we Oslers originated from a colony of inbreds.
But that’s the whole style of arguing of Levi9909 and Dean, they make preposterous claims about their opponants arguments, its not even reduction ad absurbum it’s just plainly absurbum.
Actually, it’s no surprise that Muslims and Nazis get along so well is it? Both are pro-capitalist and very big on social control. I’m not surprised that Levi6606 invoked Hitler, it displays the sort of mindset that he admires, the strong man.
preposterous claims about their opponants…it’s no surprise that Muslims and Nazis get along so well.
One is a religious community with divergent political ideas, the other is a political designation. It’s like saying chessplayers and heart surgeons have a lot in common, as complete groups they’re incomparable.
And it’s “Reductio ad absurdum”, unless “absurbum” was a portmanteau word of your own devise,dumbabs.
From what I read about the Nazi BNP they appear not to have much time for muslims. I would say it is the loony left that are more likely to be in bed with Islam both being would be dictators.
Jimmy: I don’t think you are right about that, no doubt there will be furious squeals from the usual suspects, but Harry’s Place among other websites has carried many articles tracing th links. I don’t particularly want to go into them here and now, but there is evidence of an organised relationship. Nazism is very, very poplar in the Middle East to this day, as for the ‘looney left’ that’s a subjective description. It was teh jews that the Nazis didn’t like, and the gypsies, hoosexuals, socialists, Slavs, dissidents, Catholics etc but they were cool with Islam.
Skidmarks: Good job you’re here to correct my typing. I cuold have misled a whole generation of schoolchildren. Religion and politics have no common ideals, methods or goals. Ever heard of Christian Democracy? The Muslim Brotherhood? But, I could be wrong, so can you tell me the EXPLICITLY socialist and anti-capitalist aspects of Islam? It is a question I have often pondered and so farI havenot been able to obtain any answers.
The Sewer Rat. I specifically meant the BNP not other foreign Nazi groups. Griffin has publicly been quite specific on the BNP view of Islam.
“Being a Muslim in most cases is as much a choice as being a Jew in most cases. You are happy to use the expression “antisemitism” which most people define as racism against Jews except in fairness to you you might be using it to distinguish it from racism based on skin colour. You dodged that bit of my point so I don’t know why you use the expression antisemitism.”
Well no, because those who persecute Jews do so on the basis of their ancestry – based on the theory that Jews are a race. I don’t believe that, but those who hate Jews do, therefore the term “anti-Semitism is needed to differentiate this from standard religious criticism.
The idea of “Islamophobia” or “Islamophobic racism” is a non-sequitur – Islam is a man-made ideology which people follow through a) their own free choice, or b) compulsion by others through the threat of violence (the Koran recommends death for apostasy.) Historically Jews have not been persecuted because they have held certain beliefs, it’s been because of racial theories about Jews. The banning of the burka is about man-made sexist ideology.
If you think it’s hatred against Muslims why not call it “Muslimophobia”? The reason you don’t is because everybody will see right through that argument – they will see that criticism of Islam and its practices is not hatred of Muslims and will carry on regardless. Those who use the term “Islamophobia” do so to prevent criticism of Islam. If that is not the case then why use the incorrect term “Islamophobia”? If I’m against the person and not the idea then why name the phobia after the idea?
“Re your ludicrous point about examples of women who want to wear burkas or the like, if I was to go around asking women why they wear what they do that would be racial and sexual harassment so I won’t be doing it. But there have been cases that you will know of where women have gone to court for the right to wear some Muslim garment or other.”
Again, it’s a non-sequitur. Defending the “right” of women to wear the burka is akin to defending the right of slaves to choose slavery. It’s so obviously a nonsense that it barely requires comment. I’ll believe that it’s “liberating” when men begin to wear burkas as well. Unless of course you can tell me the theoretical reason why only women “choose” to wear them??
Do Skidmarks, Mark Elf (Levi6606) et al also defend the right of women to walk four paces behind a man? I have noticed that this differs according to the ethnicity of the participants, but the point is that the woman is always behind the man, never in front or at his side.
http://www.islamicinvitationcentre.com/FAQ/women/FAQ_women.html
Sewer Rat. You will get the answer from the link.
I’m opposed to the ban on the burqua – but only slightly, and on balance. Because it would be counter-productive, and give arseholes like Galloway one more hypocritical cause to bleat about. I have every sympathy with the secular and feminist arguments in favour of the ban. And I wait in expectation to hear the cultural relativists and Gallowayite apologists for Islamo-fascism claim that objecting to the stoning of adulterous women is cultural imperialism.
Jim Denham. You should not concern yourself about my fellow Scotsman, Galloway. Just let him bleat on he is getting old and will fade away like the rest of us. A great Scottish tradition is that women should be at the sink washin the dishes in between having weans. Then back to the sink. You have to oppose the burqa 100%. See it as a duty for equality and humanity. Tell the Gorgeous brigades Salma and aw tae fuck aff. Be a man of conviction Jim. Half measures are not enough.
James Bloodworth
Re antisemitism, by your reasoning those who insist that Jews renounce their Jewish identity cannot be considered anti-Jewish racists or antisemitic. I say, eg, that Gilad Atzmon is antisemitic because he says that Jews should renounce their Jewish identity. You are also being presumptuous in saying what it is that antisemites object to about Jews. In fact you are simply inventing a self-serving argument. Heredity may have been the basis of antisemitism in the past but it isn’t necessarily the case today. Three of the most notorious antisemites poisoning discourse in the Palestine solidarity movement these days have had Jewish backgrounds: Gilad Atzmon, Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir.
As it happens most allegations of antisemitism are false in that they tend to be levelled not at antisemites but at anti-zionists. This isn’t just protecting a religion, it’s protecting an ideology and a colonial settler state structure.
I’m no more keen on the term islamophobia than I am on antisemitism. They are not non-sequiturs but they are etymologically unsound. Your question to me about “Muslimophobia” applies equally to “Judeophobia” which does get used from time to time but why clutter the language with synonyms when what is meant by what is said is known with the words to hand?
I have no interest in defending Islam or any other religion from criticism. I think all religions should be open to criticism but I don’t like the current atmosphere where criticism is levelled at one community – the Muslim community – only, especially when, knowing Judaism as I do, I know that Judaism and Islam are very similar and yet Judaism doesn’t attract anything like the same criticism that Islam does.
People cannot choose slavery. A slave is by definition owned by someone else and has no choice. A woman can choose to wear a burka and women have gone to court to defend their right to do so. I am not aware of any woman or anyone else going to court to defend their right to be a slave.
Sewer – I hope Dave is taking on board the number of hardcore racists that seem to be crawling out of the woodwork every time he posts on anything to do with Muslims. You must have seen Muslim couples walking side by side many times. How can you possibly know who is Muslim and who is not simply by where the woman is walking in relation to the man? It seems you have already decided that people who do stuff you don’t like, or claim not to like, must be Muslims and people who behave in a way you accept cannot possibly be Muslims.
I’m done here.
levi9909. Yes you are done. You never mentioned the burqa and freedom in that long winded piece rhetoric.
You are right, Mr Levi, some of them are Hindus. Not every Muslim couple walks separately and I fancy that this walking behind business will be ditched by assmilated Muslims just as assimilated Jewish have ditched shaving their heads and wearing wigs. I have even seen Muslim couples (and I know they are Muslims because the woman is wearing a hijab) holding hands in the street, so as I said this so-called ‘immutable ‘religion is not immutable. What’s Mr Hitler line on all this?
Actually, the short answer to you, Levi9909 is, I know they are Muslims because the woman is wearing a burka or a hijab or a clock a la Somalian. That is the whole purpose of the garment to identify the wearer as a Muslim. Or do you think those women with cloth draped about their body are making a fashion statement? Try to keep up.
Is there any other issue – ANY – that gets people as effing riled up as the burqa? Female Genital Mutilation doesn’t even come close!
As I said before [this sounds like Harold Wilson] Bulgaria has the highest percentage of Muslims* of any country of the EU but in 5 years I may have seen six or seven veiled women, although headscarves are plentiful in some parts of the country but are totally unthreatening.
*Ethnic Turks, Pomaks [Slavs whose ancestors converted to Islam out of opportunism or fear or a desire to cleave to the Ottoman conquerors, some Tatars, some Circassians and some Roma.
“That is the whole purpose of the garment to identify the wearer as a Muslim.”
Excellent point! Has anyone else noticed that our (once) proud indigenous working class youth only began wearing hoodies AFTER there was a mass influx of militant Muslims into our (once) great nation? It’s all part of the Islamo-fascist plan to advance Islam by stealth. Kids on council estates think head covering is “wicked and cool”, they pop on a neo-burka, and the very next minute they are signed up by the Taliban and off shooting our boys. Over there.
IF Karl Marx was alive today he’d be writing angry leaders for the Daily Mail. Rosa Lux would be on the Moral Maze with our Melanie and Lenny Lenin would be buying crates of fine claret for Chris Hitchins and Marty Amis. Where is the sensible left when we need them?
Thank God for this site which fully recognises the true issue of our time. MUSLIMS. Or “Muzos” as we call ‘em on the Guardian.
There is a reserved circle of HELL for those who cite the MAIL in any argument:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295749/Muslim-bus-drivers-refuse-let-guide-dogs-board.html
AND it’s not just burkas that should be BANNED…
“Troubadour Nigel Burch, applying to renew his busker’s licence, was recently told that banjos and ukuleles were no longer considered acceptable busking instruments. When he pointed out that he plays the banjolele, this hybrid instrument was quickly added to “the unacceptable list.” ~ Django Bates (letter to the Guardian today).
Kenny Ball is an Islamist.
Still, we can look on the bright side …
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/07/small_town_amer_1.php
… the Somali Bantus have not arrived in strength in the U.K.
Not yet, anyway.
“and give arseholes like Galloway one more hypocritical cause to bleat about”
Like the mass murder and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan or the double standards in relation to nuclear armed state terrorist Israel I presume.
“Do Skidmarks, Mark Elf (Levi6606) et al also defend the right of women to walk four paces behind a man?”
No any women not walking and standing by her mans side shall be immediately taken into custody. The Burka is just the beginning. We will also send the police into households to check who is doing the washing up and will install cameras to ensure fair balance is enforced. We will raid public houses to ensure women and men both drink the same quantity of wine and ale. Other forms of garment created for and by oppression will be banned. anyone wearing a garment produced by expolited and oppressed labour will be arrested. Nudity is the only ideologically acceptable form of clothing, anyone not nude is a fucking hypocrite.
I assume Richard Harris and Dean that with such ‘libertarian’ views you are now going to join the Tory party.
http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/burqa-ban-tories-say-unbritish-liberals-and-left-explode-with-joy/
Coates, the other day you said you were against the ban?
Are you now intent on joining UKIP and the BNP and the assorted racist arseholes above in supporting the ban? If not then will YOU be joining the Tory party? On that, New Labour or any party to the left of the Tories has not indicated they support the ban and many have spoken against it. So your question is fatuous.
Dean. The mass murder in Iraq and Afghanistan is muslim on muslim. I note you manage to drag Israel into the equation. Not many burqas there. Some people banging their heads on a wall maybe. Where and when did socialists finally lose the plot. You would make a good typical West of Scotland man Dean. Man in pub wife over the sink.
Jimmy,
Jim Denham brought Israel into it, at least that is how I read the Galloway comment. The mass murder carried out by the US and it’s allies is not Muslim on Muslim. The subsequent carnage was predicted by the left and casually left out of the pro war calculations. Why should the deaths of hundred of thousands of people matter to the imperialists hey. It isn’t as if they are there to help is it. Do they even know how many civilians have died, no war memorial for those guys. But enough of this moralism, I know it offends the pro imperialists.
Just for clarification are you against the ban?
‘Once rare in Europe, the practice of veiling has only become common as the result of the efforts of the Saudi state in recent decades to proselytise for its ultra-puritanical brand of wahhabism.’
Funny how the ‘anti-imperialists’ on SU and elsewhere condemn intervention by foreign powers around the world, and not always militarily(such as soft power) but are silent on the, imo, baleful influence the Saudis and the House of Saud has on a significant amount of EU citizens and their institutions.
Dean. Yes I am for the ban. I also admire the French stand on religion in schools. I have no time for religious control freaks wherever it raises its head. I understand from what I have read in the past is that the original idea to cover women was because they were not to be trusted. eg: that they may want to fornicate with another. It takes two at least! to fornicate. Now if the men covered up that would be equality although still stupid.
Do Dean, Richard Harris et al UNDERSTAND the purpose of the hijab/burka/cloak/abeya? I don’t think so. It is to distinguish the wear as a MUSLIM. All that shit about hoodies is just distraction noise to try and cover up the fact that we are talking about religiously ordained laws. It may be, following members of the SWP joining in the chanting of ‘allah akbar’ at a demo in East London the other day (report courtesy of the AWL) that they would like to advise their female members to don the sacred cloth as a gesture of solidarity.
Jimmy,
Thanks for confirming you are for the ban, no really, thanks.
History tells us things,
The opposite is true actually. It is the pro imperialists who conveniently leave out Saudi Arabia, the anti imperialists point out the hypocrisy of the West all the time. And the pro imperialists never really give an answer to this question. I guess for pro imperialists, it is my ruling class right or wrong.
Sewer,
I am guessing you wear clothes made by oppressed workers. Fucking hypocrite.
You really are a prize tit. Deen. The issue is not who makes the graments, all workers are oppressed under capitalism, the issue is one of religious law. None of the garments I wear are ordained by religious law. I do not wer a Morman chastity garment, I do not wear a Jewish wig, I do not wear a headcovering when I go into a Catholic Church (because I never go into a Catholic Church), I do not wear those sweet little lacy caps that some of the Dutch sects in America wear. if I did, you could with just cause call me a hypocrite. Are you sure you are a socialist? Do you understand the difference between economic, political and social systems and thought?
Now this will be my last contribution to this site. This quantity of racism is liable to corrupt the soul. No wait, I will rephrase as the secular fascists will get all hot and bothered. This quantity of racism is liable to corrupt the species being.
Anyway, I have to plead a little ignorance of this issue. Obviously I haven’t spent hour after hour investigating this topic like Jimmy Glegsa, who clearly has spent considerable time among Muslims, listening to their attitudes, compiling data, reading numerous literature. And who can ignore Sewers compelling evidence of her walk down the street? And who can follow Andrew Coates ever changing opinion or Jim Denham’s I support the ban but I will put it in a way that says I don’t.
I have a plan of action to inform myself on this subject. I have drawn up a list of people who should be listened to when evaluating this issue. The first on the list is the best people to listen to the bottom are the worst people to listen to. Here goes,
1. Women who actually wear the Burqa
2. Muslim women in general
3. Feminists who are not racist
4. Women in general who are not racists
5. Children
6. Chimpanzees
7. Paul the Octopus
8. Psychic Sally
9. My pet Hamster, Roger
10. Men who are not racist or Muslim
11. Bloggers of any description
12. Muslim men who are ‘moderates’
13. Religious fundamentalists of any description
14. Racists of all descriptions
15. Jim Denham
One final thought before I go, specifically to those on the left(that doesn’t mean you Sewer), won’t the immigration laws need changing? Surely no women who wear the Burqa can be allowed into the country can they? The law doesn’t allow for gradually throwing off the habit of a lifetime or anything human like that does it? So an amendent to immigration law must come with the ban on the Burqa.
Former neo liberal. No need to change the law at all. Why would anyone want to immigrate when they are in their own religious paradise. In any case I do not think it will be banned in Britain. To much business to be done with Saudi to upset the applecart.
Is Syria Islamophobic as well? And, what make syou think your opinion has one iota of value, neo-liberal?
Actually, I just want to re-iterate I am not in favour of a ban because I think that keeping the issue in the public eye is a good way of educating people. They should be forced to justify their archaic dress at every opportunity.
That should be ‘archaic and divisive’.
And, is Egypt ‘Islamophobic’?
If you have not done so I want you all to read William Dalrymple’s book
FROM THE HOLY MOUNTAIN
and this too…
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=19-02-028-f
Where did it all go wrong, David, where did it all go wrong?