Banning the Burka doesn't have to be about religion - it's about ethnic English and other ethnic Britons feeling very uncomfortable about a person next to them bring covered from head to toe. And people who stand up and say they feel uncomfortable about that shouldn't be condemned - they have every right to question the wearing of the Burka - it's their free speech, especially when the law is not fair - for example, according to the law, I cannot go into a gas station waiting a crash helmut.
So your argument to ban the burka is that it makes white people uncomfortable? Going to have to ban a lot of things if being uncomfortable about them is the criteria
Valerie Mc Phail, I will like to raise a concern at these times of debate: Maybe, that's in their heart (the hate for us) - only God knows - probably some of these people think like that - but not all - we have to take each as "case by case," otherwise if we paint them all as having hate and contempt for us, then what we are condemning them for, we a are guilty of - if the hate we project on them is coming from the projection of hate from our hearts. Just as Jesus said, " Before you remove the speck of sin from your fellow's eye, first remove the forest of sin from your own, then your eyes will be clear to take the plank from your fellow's eyes." (My paraphrase) Having said that, I agree with most of what you say, as long as we keep checking our hearts and making sure we are not so consumed by the same toxic hate we are condemning others of.
christopher briscoe So, did I get this right? You think that you should have the right to say to a stranger that you feel uncomfortable because of what he is wearing? Do I have the right to harass people because they wear shorts? Can I harass nuns? What do you care what people wear? Last time I checked the UK was a liberal democracy and people can wear whatever they like, as long as it's in bounds of decency. Do you want to turn the UK into a dictatorship? What with the free speech right of Muslims to wear what they want?
I can only speak authoritatively from a familial standpoint. If my sister, mum, aunts etc started wearing one of those things.. us menfolk would be absolutely mortified. Sizeable swathes of the Muslim community have zero issue with a niqab ban. It’s a security risk and in addition if you want to live in the West and feel as though displaying a face is too much to ask for then it’s probably not for you.
Good post Ali. For many people in the UK concerned about Islam, it really is just about cultures - all cultures - cleaving to progress in order to integrate. We simply don't want to go back to the middle ages via certain backward cultural beliefs and practices - which is where some adherents of Islam want to go. Our middle ages were dirty, painful and destructive times and there's absolutely fuck all chance that we are going to accept rolling back to that ultimately.
Expense? Not sure I understand what you mean. Private belief - each individual to their own that is - is fine but the issue is where private beliefs create incursions into the public and policy forums and also where they compromise the right of any other individuals to live under the dispensation of our freedoms. Ideally, classical liberal freedoms for me. I simply ask for individuals to be free however you cannot have that freedom in an atmosphere of religious coercions. Other individuals can't then use their freedom to propagate a constituency that would roll that back. We can't have Balkanisation. The freedoms we want don't by their nature extend an invitation to come into this society and, as if we were lending someone our car, allow them to wilfully crash it.
@finnbar snowdrop Rest assured that the desire to stay in the 21st century and shun medievalism is one that we share. You know it’s interesting - if you were to watch footage of the state funeral of Anwar Sadat the former President of Egypt in 81, among the swarms of people that came out in mourning there is not a single burka in sight. The sudden resurgence of it is unusual, if anything you’d have thought that people would get less religious as time went on. I think that within the Muslim communities living in the West, post 911, what we are seeing is reactive defiance. Whether or not you agree that there has been a sustained anti-Muslim campaign in the press, which started in America and gave birth to “fake news”, I think that the new-found prominence of the Hijab is (for some) a symbol of benign resistance. As if to say, actually I’m proud of my religious identity. There’s a lot of parental fear, a feeling that we are despised by broader society etc, de facto insularism. I’m not saying that it is warranted nor that negative news stories are unwarranted but sometimes, I think feelings can get in the way of facts. I think that one thing that is largely overlooked is the level of disdain within the Muslim community for people that subscribe to modern day medievalism. We are all tarred with the same brush, and many of us want that sort to leave these shores. Furthermore I think that we have to be very careful in the West, it isn’t simply a matter of economic allure, but values that have been of intrinsic appeal for the persecuted, for minorities, and any dilution of that, or overtures for accommodating faith are to be rejected. I would not support the legalisation of marijuana specifically for the Rastafarian community. I wouldn’t support legislation that permitted Sikhs to carry a dagger. This is a wager-placing, dog-loving, bacon scoffing, hard drinking nation. I partake in none of those activities, but I love that about the country, and as a third generation immigrant, that is the country we came to, and that is the way we’d like it to stay. No appeasement.
There are a few problems with the burkha debate. 1) It should go without saying that sartorial criticisms of a religious form of dress is completely allowable. If someone sees a gaggle of nuns descending a cliff to the sea, and makes the observation that they look like penguins, there's nothing wrong with that. Similarly, if someone says that the Burkha puts them in mind of bank robbers, or letterboxes, then that is fine too. We've never had a problem poking fun at goths or punk rockers, or anyone else before. Religion gives you no protection. Indeed, from what I understand, when Boris Johnson made the comment, it was in a piece that was against banning the burkha. The idea that he or anyone who has similar views of it is racist is bonkers (for multiple reasons, not least his comment apply equally to white Muslims as it does anyone else) 2) A big problem with the burkha - and even some of the lesser forms of face covering - is that it's a very definite, and undeniably symbol of the constant oppression of women in the Muslim world. Now, it may well be that people in the west want to wear it to advertise their pride in being a Muslim. Given the verse that Muslims use to back up the idea that veils are a tenet of Islam requires it on modesty grounds, it's rather a bizarre thing for Muslims to want to do, but I digress. But no-one around you knows your reasoning. Indeed, because of the associations that the various veils have, it is arguably more likely to believe that any women saying this are actually being forced to say it by oppressive husbands and father, who are infringing upon the woman's human rights. To try an analogy, imagine that you went around wearing KKK gear. When you are challenged upon it, you say that you are doing it to express your individuality, and have no link to the KKK whatsoever (or that obscure catholic group of monks who wear something remarkably similar). Would such an excuse wash? Of course not. The image you may be wanting to project is not the same image that a person seeing you gets. You say you're demonstrating you woman's right to wear whatever you like, the people who are looking to you will simply reply that it looks far more to any onlooker that you are not just condoning but rather promoting one of the most extensive cases of human rights abuse in the world. 3) Religion should never, ever be an excuse to do things and wear things that are unacceptable in a secular context. You can't have special privilege in a world where the worth of each person is meant to be the same. Any time that any secular face covering isn't allowed, any religious face covering also isn't allow. That's how a truly liberal place works.
1) Being immature and childish isn't a justification for bigotry 2) *The UK is not a part of the Muslim world.* People in the West aren't FORCED to wear the burqa, disallowing them to do so is as oppressive as forcing them to do it. 3)Secularism means the church and the state are separate. You're suggesting the State should regulate religion, that's the opposite of secular
Its the bank robber comment that is at the crux of the argument against Boris Johnson. Whilst simultaneously arguing not to criminalise the burka he conflates those who wear one as looking like criminals. That seems like a dog whistle and is why the Tory party is investigating him.
I can only assume that your second comment is in relation to your first, red drib, because you clearly haven't got the faintest idea what many words mean. Take for example: 1) Bigotry. Again, having a sartorial opinion upon the clothes of a religious sect is no more bigoted than having a sartorial opinion upon the clothes a football team wears. Go look up the word bigotry and learn its meaning. 2) The very fact that you can say (and even put in bold!) the sentence: 'The UK is not a part of the Muslim world' demonstrates that either you have made no attempt to understand the argument, or else are incapable of it. Imagine if a group of people wore the KKK uniform in London, and then in their defence said 'The UK is not a part of the American deep south'. Also, at no point did I say people should be disallowed from wearing the Burkha. Go pick up a dictionary. My point was that people wearing the Burkha should be aware that their intended statement by wearing it is not the one that people are likely to get from it. Instead, people are going to assume that they support human rights abuse(r)s instead. 3) Wow. So you think that not giving a religion special dispensation to do things otherwise outlawed is 'State regulat[ing] religion'? If anything demonstrates you need to pick up a dictionary, that does.
Does the burka really offend people in this country are people really scared of people wearing one does it really make people feel unsafe? Then why do people go to places like Malaysia on holiday and go via middle East airports like Dubai were it's full of people wearing them.
Well maybe not *literally* everyone, but most people. That's what the polling statistics show - most people want it banned. When the average native person sees this burka debate on TV, at least at a subconscious level, they are reminded that there are negative differences between the natives and the foreigners. And after a while of seeing this same story over and over again, they begin to resent immigration. You can be in denial if you want, but the polling statistics show that most people want it banned. Personally I don't, but most do.
We don't have a free society and it is not necessarily ideal anyway. Yougov poll showed Brits are in favour of banning the burka 2 to 1. If you Google "burka poll", you'll see a dozen polls like it.
LowleyUK. I meant 'ideal' as in the concept of a free society, not in the sense of a perfect one. And, according to a 2016 YouGov poll, support for a burqa ban was declining - but that's really not the point. Just because most people think something is bad doesn't make it automatically so; bearing in mind the pressures to conform to a particular viewpoint from various quarters. And a free society is certainly not ideal if you're the one whose freedoms are being taken away.
6 років тому
Wake UP. This is a face to face, eye to eye society...even my dogs know this. Say no to burkas, the only way to live face to face.
" Everything is changed utterly. Or about to be, as soon as your new leader is chosen. The country you live in, the parliamentary democracy that ruled it, for good or bad, has been trumped by a plebiscite of dubious purpose and unacknowledged status." So wrote Ian Mcewen in July 2016 aftr the Brexit vote. It's difficult to grasp how rotten this generation of people think the working class are, but it is one endorsed and echoed by the bbc. The idea of biological life being the basis of human value rather than social status and education is lost on them. This is the death of a defunct world view.
The Framers of the US Constitution resolved the issue of the burka and its mockery some 230 years ago with the First Amendment, the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press . . ..” in short, the government (including busy bodies in society) don’t to get say what articles of clothing a religious person is allowed to wear or must wear. Nor can they proscribe mockery and jest of such clothing. Or of anything else. I’m so very glad for that Amendment. It was the birth of liberty perhaps more than any other.
It does not matter whether the burkha is an Islamic garment or not because if we apply the values of tolerance, free speech and expression, whatever a man or woman wishes to wear is permittable. No one questions whether a mini skirt is acceptable to be worn. We are not getting a nose bleed about whether they are sexualized, objectified etc. It's a choice. Same for a Burkha. You don't have to like it or accept it but you can tolerate it based on principles of freedom of expression. Live and let live.
"No woman in a burqa (or a hijab or a burkini) has ever done me any harm. But I was sacked (without explanation) by a man in a suit. Men in suits missold me pensions and endowments, costing me thousands of pounds. A man in a suit led us on a disastrous and illegal war. Men in suits led the banks and crashed the world economy. Other men in suits then increased the misery to millions through austerity. If we are to start telling people what to wear, maybe we should ban suits." Henry Stewart London
Wear the bukka if it's truly your choice but don't expect to keep it on when walking through airports and banks. I don't care what you wear, but then don't ban bikini women on posters like London mayor Khan did. (Free speech is more important in a muti-faith society then any religion is) bukka is not part of any religion its not even really a part of any culture's . But culture's are banned all the time (like drill music). More people wear bikini then a bukka.
The Protein World "bikini" ads were removed by TfL and banned by the Advertising Standards Authority in April 2015, a year before Khan was elected Mayor (nothing to do with "multi-faith society or free speech). The burqa is probably pre-Islamic, modern records first mention it during the 17th century among Tajik and Uzbeks but its only become a "fashion" item in the last couple of decades.
ASLEF shrugged to be honest I didn't know the ban on bikini was a year befor Khan. Maybe because Khan was fully behind the ban.. But that don't make a difference. So would TFL ban the burka on the London transport or even just it being on the posters? Why ban a bikini but not a burka which isn't part of a faith and is a fashion statement in the last few decades, just like a bikini. Double standards The free speech was effect when Boris wasn't allowed to call it a letterbox. (he didn't call the person a letterbox, just the burka) I do think I spelt the burka wrong.
TfL didn't ban the ads, the ASA did after numerous complaints from the public, after he was elected Khan said that TfL wouldn't accept similar adverts but there have been at least two cases since then where people have complained about adverts for similar reasons. TfL and the ASA couldn't ban burqas because they aren't advertising. I've seen women (and some men) in bikinis or approximately the same on the Tube, especially around Notting Hill Carnival or Gay Pride, no one cares. Admittedly some of those wearing bikinis weren't quite as beach body ready as the posters but this is fucking London, like we give a shit, get your tits out, wear a burka, do what the fuck you want. Burkha, bourkha, burka, burqua, or burqu, its an Arabic word derived from Uzbek or Tajik so there's no correct way to spell it in English.
Paul Molloy I'm half Indian so I'm not comming from a racist view point just to make clear. I went to a white racist school as a teen and I live in a mainly black area of London. I have seen racism in full swing and from all race and colours. TfL banned the ad because of afew people that moaned about it. People are moaning about the burka so in that same standards shouldn't the same apply then. (Otherwise that's discrimination) I should have a right to say how the burka looks as it wouldn't be hate speech or racist. Just like how a big baby ballon over london of a rich white guy is ok. (Which did also offended alot of people). But living in a supposedly free speech country it's ok to take the piss out of the white US president (everybody walked on egg shells for Obama). But Only when it comes to white rich guys talking about a letterbox Burka's that it's not allowed. I just see so many double standards that's all.
Paul Keeble - how can the same standards apply? Wearing a burka and the Trump balloon aren't classified as advertising so neither falls under the auspices of the Advertising Standards Authority (who banned the ads, not TfL). Khan was intending to refuse to allow the Trump balloon at the protests but gave in because the support it received far outweighed the complaints. George W came to the UK in 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2008, Clinton came to the UK in 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998 and 2000, both white US presidents but there were no mass protests. Trump's visit was met by a mass protest not because he is white but because he is an arsehole.
I can see no problem with women wearing the burka in the comfort and privacy of their own home. Admittedly it is likely to get in the way when doing one's household chores, a risk to life and limb perhaps, but clearly that is something that concerns only the wearer. Doesn't the problem merely arise when they take it out into the street?
"The best guarentee of religious freedom and religious tolerance should be a well organized secular state ~ Mr McEwan" ? No, I beg to differ with Mr McEwan's view because secularism if you come to think of it, is also a kind of belief system, a "religion" if you will. Who made the "religion" of secularism superior to other religions?
Well, there's me thinking that a burka is an item of clothing worn by a religious group. But from reading the comments it seems that not agreeing with the burka means you're against an entire race of people... So it must be worn based on race rather than religion :/
Notwithstanding cultural, historical legacies, the issue of the burka, or any other so-called modest dress, is simple. The human body needs exposure to sunshine in order to produce vitamin D. This is a scientific fact. Body covering to the extent that the body does not receive the required amount of sunshine is a matter of health, as understood in the 21st century. The discussion of the burka should be a discussion of the consequences upon the woman's health resulting from anachronistic cultural practices. Women that are ignorant of science need support and education, not tolerance of self harming behaviour. Iran performed an accidental experiment starting in 1979. Diseases made worse for lack of vitamin D have shot up in Iran. Multiple sclerosis, cancer and rickets are significantly higher in the population than prior to enforced body covering, or shielding from the sun. People, especially women, are harming themselves out of ignorance or coercion.
Ian McEwan is a marvellous writer...that said his last few books are lacking the killer punch that the Innocent, Amsterdam, Atonement had...he is coasting....which is a shame....also glaringly obvious...he is very out of touch with the ugly reality of much of modern Britain...that is a weird conflab of arab, somali, pakistani and all sorts of odd notes in places where the indigenous people are outnumbered and preyed upon
I feel sorry for the men who have to wear suits and ties at work on a boiling hot summers day, and kids being forced to wear school uniforms like prisoners why can't try wear what they like. Danm nation!
It's the damn same! Office personnel rules declare they have to wear such clothing to work in that environment, same applies to schools, uniforms, police officers, nurses, doctors, priests, monks, nuns, sports players etc They all follow " this medieval" traditions just bcuz ppl of Islam are not following society and it's man made rules, not laws ,rules they are being bullied and harassed because they don't follow along like puppets and sheep, they use there mind and intelligence in life, they don't let there body image define who or what they are worth. Good day sir!
middle class liberals are under attack ,islamics area attacking your edifice as Irish Catlioics of my generation did .It could be (god forbid) that you have got it wrong
McEwan is pulling his punches and knows he would get in trouble for his real views. And that point on the 'there are so few adults who wear them' is clearly wrong. In any town centre of any size up and down England, I doubt you could go more than an hour before seeing a woman or women in a burqa, and not just in Muslim areas. Southampton city centre? Liverpool city centre? Watford? Folkstone? Norwich? I bet all of them. And lets not get started on Luton and Birmingham and Oldham and Rotherham and any area of inner London, Manchester, Rochdale, Croydon, Burnley, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Nuneaton, Telford, Bolton, Reading...the list goes on.
Yes! I get so irritated by this. I've heard it quoted that only 300 or so women wear the niqab/burka but that's BS. I could take my kid one mile up the road to school in London and see ten veiled women so it would seem unlikely the whole country has only 300! Even where I live now up North in a city with no sizable Muslim population I have seen the niqab. 300? My arse. There will be more than 300 just in say, Leicester.
@@danzel1157 are you seriously trying to say there are only 300 people wearing the niqab in the whole country?? Where the fuck do you live? Orkney?! How is this figure arrived at anyway? It's deeply worrying because it is being deliberately adopted in the main by young women who are using it as a way of saying "we are not like you, we reject your values." If you think that's a trend that is not concerning you're a fool.
I find the Burka quite insulting, as a man do these women really think that I am going to be overcome with passion if I see their faces? The Burka assumes that I am unable to control my urges which to me is an insult.
Banning the Burka doesn't have to be about religion - it's about ethnic English and other ethnic Britons feeling very uncomfortable about a person next to them bring covered from head to toe. And people who stand up and say they feel uncomfortable about that shouldn't be condemned - they have every right to question the wearing of the Burka - it's their free speech, especially when the law is not fair - for example, according to the law, I cannot go into a gas station waiting a crash helmut.
The burka has absolutely nothing to do with the 'religion' and every thing to do with Dark Age tribal traditions and oppression.
So your argument to ban the burka is that it makes white people uncomfortable? Going to have to ban a lot of things if being uncomfortable about them is the criteria
Valerie Mc Phail, I will like to raise a concern at these times of debate: Maybe, that's in their heart (the hate for us) - only God knows - probably some of these people think like that - but not all - we have to take each as "case by case," otherwise if we paint them all as having hate and contempt for us, then what we are condemning them for, we a are guilty of - if the hate we project on them is coming from the projection of hate from our hearts. Just as Jesus said, " Before you remove the speck of sin from your fellow's eye, first remove the forest of sin from your own, then your eyes will be clear to take the plank from your fellow's eyes." (My paraphrase) Having said that, I agree with most of what you say, as long as we keep checking our hearts and making sure we are not so consumed by the same toxic hate we are condemning others of.
Helmut Kohl
christopher briscoe
So, did I get this right? You think that you should have the right to say to a stranger that you feel uncomfortable because of what he is wearing? Do I have the right to harass people because they wear shorts? Can I harass nuns? What do you care what people wear? Last time I checked the UK was a liberal democracy and people can wear whatever they like, as long as it's in bounds of decency. Do you want to turn the UK into a dictatorship? What with the free speech right of Muslims to wear what they want?
I find the people wearing crocs offensive can you ban that aswell
Tommy Jimmy lol. Apparently the company that makes them is stopping their production. Seems you aren't the only one ' crocked out'
Tommy Jimmy
Well, the crocs don’t cover the face!
I can only speak authoritatively from a familial standpoint. If my sister, mum, aunts etc started wearing one of those things.. us menfolk would be absolutely mortified. Sizeable swathes of the Muslim community have zero issue with a niqab ban. It’s a security risk and in addition if you want to live in the West and feel as though displaying a face is too much to ask for then it’s probably not for you.
Ali Hussain
Please note that trench coats and other garments that can conceal weapons are still fair game.
Good post Ali. For many people in the UK concerned about Islam, it really is just about cultures - all cultures - cleaving to progress in order to integrate. We simply don't want to go back to the middle ages via certain backward cultural beliefs and practices - which is where some adherents of Islam want to go. Our middle ages were dirty, painful and destructive times and there's absolutely fuck all chance that we are going to accept rolling back to that ultimately.
Finnbar Snowdrop at the expense of the muslims that have done no wrong?
Expense? Not sure I understand what you mean. Private belief - each individual to their own that is - is fine but the issue is where private beliefs create incursions into the public and policy forums and also where they compromise the right of any other individuals to live under the dispensation of our freedoms. Ideally, classical liberal freedoms for me. I simply ask for individuals to be free however you cannot have that freedom in an atmosphere of religious coercions. Other individuals can't then use their freedom to propagate a constituency that would roll that back. We can't have Balkanisation. The freedoms we want don't by their nature extend an invitation to come into this society and, as if we were lending someone our car, allow them to wilfully crash it.
@finnbar snowdrop
Rest assured that the desire to stay in the 21st century and shun medievalism is one that we share. You know it’s interesting - if you were to watch footage of the state funeral of Anwar Sadat the former President of Egypt in 81, among the swarms of people that came out in mourning there is not a single burka in sight. The sudden resurgence of it is unusual, if anything you’d have thought that people would get less religious as time went on. I think that within the Muslim communities living in the West, post 911, what we are seeing is reactive defiance. Whether or not you agree that there has been a sustained anti-Muslim campaign in the press, which started in America and gave birth to “fake news”, I think that the new-found prominence of the Hijab is (for some) a symbol of benign resistance. As if to say, actually I’m proud of my religious identity. There’s a lot of parental fear, a feeling that we are despised by broader society etc, de facto insularism. I’m not saying that it is warranted nor that negative news stories are unwarranted but sometimes, I think feelings can get in the way of facts. I think that one thing that is largely overlooked is the level of disdain within the Muslim community for people that subscribe to modern day medievalism. We are all tarred with the same brush, and many of us want that sort to leave these shores. Furthermore I think that we have to be very careful in the West, it isn’t simply a matter of economic allure, but values that have been of intrinsic appeal for the persecuted, for minorities, and any dilution of that, or overtures for accommodating faith are to be rejected. I would not support the legalisation of marijuana specifically for the Rastafarian community. I wouldn’t support legislation that permitted Sikhs to carry a dagger. This is a wager-placing, dog-loving, bacon scoffing, hard drinking nation. I partake in none of those activities, but I love that about the country, and as a third generation immigrant, that is the country we came to, and that is the way we’d like it to stay. No appeasement.
There are a few problems with the burkha debate.
1) It should go without saying that sartorial criticisms of a religious form of dress is completely allowable. If someone sees a gaggle of nuns descending a cliff to the sea, and makes the observation that they look like penguins, there's nothing wrong with that. Similarly, if someone says that the Burkha puts them in mind of bank robbers, or letterboxes, then that is fine too. We've never had a problem poking fun at goths or punk rockers, or anyone else before. Religion gives you no protection. Indeed, from what I understand, when Boris Johnson made the comment, it was in a piece that was against banning the burkha. The idea that he or anyone who has similar views of it is racist is bonkers (for multiple reasons, not least his comment apply equally to white Muslims as it does anyone else)
2) A big problem with the burkha - and even some of the lesser forms of face covering - is that it's a very definite, and undeniably symbol of the constant oppression of women in the Muslim world. Now, it may well be that people in the west want to wear it to advertise their pride in being a Muslim. Given the verse that Muslims use to back up the idea that veils are a tenet of Islam requires it on modesty grounds, it's rather a bizarre thing for Muslims to want to do, but I digress. But no-one around you knows your reasoning. Indeed, because of the associations that the various veils have, it is arguably more likely to believe that any women saying this are actually being forced to say it by oppressive husbands and father, who are infringing upon the woman's human rights.
To try an analogy, imagine that you went around wearing KKK gear. When you are challenged upon it, you say that you are doing it to express your individuality, and have no link to the KKK whatsoever (or that obscure catholic group of monks who wear something remarkably similar). Would such an excuse wash? Of course not. The image you may be wanting to project is not the same image that a person seeing you gets.
You say you're demonstrating you woman's right to wear whatever you like, the people who are looking to you will simply reply that it looks far more to any onlooker that you are not just condoning but rather promoting one of the most extensive cases of human rights abuse in the world.
3) Religion should never, ever be an excuse to do things and wear things that are unacceptable in a secular context. You can't have special privilege in a world where the worth of each person is meant to be the same. Any time that any secular face covering isn't allowed, any religious face covering also isn't allow. That's how a truly liberal place works.
1) Being immature and childish isn't a justification for bigotry
2) *The UK is not a part of the Muslim world.* People in the West aren't FORCED to wear the burqa, disallowing them to do so is as oppressive as forcing them to do it.
3)Secularism means the church and the state are separate. You're suggesting the State should regulate religion, that's the opposite of secular
you need to relearn your words, you didn't learn them properly the first time... you don't seem to know what they mean
Its the bank robber comment that is at the crux of the argument against Boris Johnson. Whilst simultaneously arguing not to criminalise the burka he conflates those who wear one as looking like criminals. That seems like a dog whistle and is why the Tory party is investigating him.
no no regulate religion: regulate not going around concealed - completely different
I can only assume that your second comment is in relation to your first, red drib, because you clearly haven't got the faintest idea what many words mean. Take for example:
1) Bigotry.
Again, having a sartorial opinion upon the clothes of a religious sect is no more bigoted than having a sartorial opinion upon the clothes a football team wears. Go look up the word bigotry and learn its meaning.
2) The very fact that you can say (and even put in bold!) the sentence: 'The UK is not a part of the Muslim world' demonstrates that either you have made no attempt to understand the argument, or else are incapable of it. Imagine if a group of people wore the KKK uniform in London, and then in their defence said 'The UK is not a part of the American deep south'.
Also, at no point did I say people should be disallowed from wearing the Burkha. Go pick up a dictionary. My point was that people wearing the Burkha should be aware that their intended statement by wearing it is not the one that people are likely to get from it. Instead, people are going to assume that they support human rights abuse(r)s instead.
3) Wow. So you think that not giving a religion special dispensation to do things otherwise outlawed is 'State regulat[ing] religion'? If anything demonstrates you need to pick up a dictionary, that does.
Does the burka really offend people in this country are people really scared of people wearing one does it really make people feel unsafe? Then why do people go to places like Malaysia on holiday and go via middle East airports like Dubai were it's full of people wearing them.
Why do they have Ian McEwan on Newsnight so much anyway?
I love the Burka. It reminds everyone that mass immigration is a problem.
LowleyUK. No, it doesn't.
Well maybe not *literally* everyone, but most people. That's what the polling statistics show - most people want it banned.
When the average native person sees this burka debate on TV, at least at a subconscious level, they are reminded that there are negative differences between the natives and the foreigners. And after a while of seeing this same story over and over again, they begin to resent immigration.
You can be in denial if you want, but the polling statistics show that most people want it banned. Personally I don't, but most do.
LowleyUK. So the ideal of a free society is conditional. What polls, by the way?
We don't have a free society and it is not necessarily ideal anyway. Yougov poll showed Brits are in favour of banning the burka 2 to 1. If you Google "burka poll", you'll see a dozen polls like it.
LowleyUK. I meant 'ideal' as in the concept of a free society, not in the sense of a perfect one. And, according to a 2016 YouGov poll, support for a burqa ban was declining - but that's really not the point. Just because most people think something is bad doesn't make it automatically so; bearing in mind the pressures to conform to a particular viewpoint from various quarters. And a free society is certainly not ideal if you're the one whose freedoms are being taken away.
Wake UP. This is a face to face, eye to eye society...even my dogs know this. Say no to burkas, the only way to live face to face.
" Everything is changed utterly. Or about to be, as soon as your new leader is chosen. The country you live in, the parliamentary democracy that ruled it, for good or bad, has been trumped by a plebiscite of dubious purpose and unacknowledged status." So wrote Ian Mcewen in July 2016 aftr the Brexit vote.
It's difficult to grasp how rotten this generation of people think the working class are, but it is one endorsed and echoed by the bbc. The idea of biological life being the basis of human value rather than social status and education is lost on them. This is the death of a defunct world view.
The Framers of the US Constitution resolved the issue of the burka and its mockery some 230 years ago with the First Amendment, the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press . . ..” in short, the government (including busy bodies in society) don’t to get say what articles of clothing a religious person is allowed to wear or must wear. Nor can they proscribe mockery and jest of such clothing. Or of anything else. I’m so very glad for that Amendment. It was the birth of liberty perhaps more than any other.
It does not matter whether the burkha is an Islamic garment or not because if we apply the values of tolerance, free speech and expression, whatever a man or woman wishes to wear is permittable. No one questions whether a mini skirt is acceptable to be worn. We are not getting a nose bleed about whether they are sexualized, objectified etc. It's a choice. Same for a Burkha. You don't have to like it or accept it but you can tolerate it based on principles of freedom of expression. Live and let live.
"No woman in a burqa (or a hijab or a burkini) has ever done me any harm. But I was sacked (without explanation) by a man in a suit. Men in suits missold me pensions and endowments, costing me thousands of pounds. A man in a suit led us on a disastrous and illegal war. Men in suits led the banks and crashed the world economy. Other men in suits then increased the misery to millions through austerity. If we are to start telling people what to wear, maybe we should ban suits."
Henry Stewart
London
Wear the bukka if it's truly your choice but don't expect to keep it on when walking through airports and banks.
I don't care what you wear, but then don't ban bikini women on posters like London mayor Khan did.
(Free speech is more important in a muti-faith society then any religion is)
bukka is not part of any religion its not even really a part of any culture's . But culture's are banned all the time
(like drill music).
More people wear bikini then a bukka.
The Protein World "bikini" ads were removed by TfL and banned by the Advertising Standards Authority in April 2015, a year before Khan was elected Mayor (nothing to do with "multi-faith society or free speech).
The burqa is probably pre-Islamic, modern records first mention it during the 17th century among Tajik and Uzbeks but its only become a "fashion" item in the last couple of decades.
ASLEF shrugged to be honest I didn't know the ban on bikini was a year befor Khan.
Maybe because Khan was fully behind the ban.. But that don't make a difference.
So would TFL ban the burka on the London transport or even just it being on the posters?
Why ban a bikini but not a burka which isn't part of a faith and is a fashion statement in the last few decades, just like a bikini.
Double standards
The free speech was effect when Boris wasn't allowed to call it a letterbox. (he didn't call the person a letterbox, just the burka)
I do think I spelt the burka wrong.
TfL didn't ban the ads, the ASA did after numerous complaints from the public, after he was elected Khan said that TfL wouldn't accept similar adverts but there have been at least two cases since then where people have complained about adverts for similar reasons.
TfL and the ASA couldn't ban burqas because they aren't advertising. I've seen women (and some men) in bikinis or approximately the same on the Tube, especially around Notting Hill Carnival or Gay Pride, no one cares. Admittedly some of those wearing bikinis weren't quite as beach body ready as the posters but this is fucking London, like we give a shit, get your tits out, wear a burka, do what the fuck you want.
Burkha, bourkha, burka, burqua, or burqu, its an Arabic word derived from Uzbek or Tajik so there's no correct way to spell it in English.
Paul Molloy I'm half Indian so I'm not comming from a racist view point just to make clear.
I went to a white racist school as a teen and I live in a mainly black area of London.
I have seen racism in full swing and from all race and colours.
TfL banned the ad because of afew people that moaned about it.
People are moaning about the burka so in that same standards shouldn't the same apply then.
(Otherwise that's discrimination)
I should have a right to say how the burka looks as it wouldn't be hate speech or racist.
Just like how a big baby ballon over london of a rich white guy is ok.
(Which did also offended alot of people).
But living in a supposedly free speech country it's ok to take the piss out of the white US president (everybody walked on egg shells for Obama).
But Only when it comes to white rich guys talking about a letterbox Burka's that it's not allowed.
I just see so many double standards that's all.
Paul Keeble - how can the same standards apply? Wearing a burka and the Trump balloon aren't classified as advertising so neither falls under the auspices of the Advertising Standards Authority (who banned the ads, not TfL). Khan was intending to refuse to allow the Trump balloon at the protests but gave in because the support it received far outweighed the complaints.
George W came to the UK in 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2008, Clinton came to the UK in 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998 and 2000, both white US presidents but there were no mass protests.
Trump's visit was met by a mass protest not because he is white but because he is an arsehole.
I can see no problem with women wearing the burka in the comfort and privacy of their own home. Admittedly it is likely to get in the way when doing one's household chores, a risk to life and limb perhaps, but clearly that is something that concerns only the wearer.
Doesn't the problem merely arise when they take it out into the street?
He needs to walk down Oxford Street in London and while he is there see how many white English people he can spot
Can’t believe he called the split in the Labour Party a year before it happened
"The best guarentee of religious freedom and religious tolerance should be a well organized secular state ~ Mr McEwan" ? No, I beg to differ with Mr McEwan's view because secularism if you come to think of it, is also a kind of belief system, a "religion" if you will. Who made the "religion" of secularism superior to other religions?
Covering your face/ Burka in public is unnecessary and is anti-social.
“I’m all Burka’d out” 😭
I put this on because it says Burma and freedom of speech first 5mins is about the childrens courts
I bet you were furious when in the last couple of minutes they didn't reference the southeast of Asia at all.
Hugh Williams
Aung San Suu Kyi enjoys Lapsang Souchong
For a friend of Christopher Hitchens, he really is quite a coward, isn't he?
Both the BURKA and the NIQAB should be banned in public places. Period
Well, there's me thinking that a burka is an item of clothing worn by a religious group. But from reading the comments it seems that not agreeing with the burka means you're against an entire race of people... So it must be worn based on race rather than religion :/
Notwithstanding cultural, historical legacies, the issue of the burka, or any other so-called modest dress, is simple. The human body needs exposure to sunshine in order to produce vitamin D. This is a scientific fact. Body covering to the extent that the body does not receive the required amount of sunshine is a matter of health, as understood in the 21st century. The discussion of the burka should be a discussion of the consequences upon the woman's health resulting from anachronistic cultural practices. Women that are ignorant of science need support and education, not tolerance of self harming behaviour. Iran performed an accidental experiment starting in 1979. Diseases made worse for lack of vitamin D have shot up in Iran. Multiple sclerosis, cancer and rickets are significantly higher in the population than prior to enforced body covering, or shielding from the sun. People, especially women, are harming themselves out of ignorance or coercion.
Your absolutely right!!
I think the burqa has great potential to increase in popularity.
I enjoyed reading his novels but I fear I shan't buy another one.
Ian McEwan is a marvellous writer...that said his last few books are lacking the killer punch that the Innocent, Amsterdam, Atonement had...he is coasting....which is a shame....also glaringly obvious...he is very out of touch with the ugly reality of much of modern Britain...that is a weird conflab of arab, somali, pakistani and all sorts of odd notes in places where the indigenous people are outnumbered and preyed upon
Well said
Talking about it won't help the children. Just your own guilt
It's okay if something is wrong if it only affects a few people apparently, this guy is s touch thick
I feel sorry for the men who have to wear suits and ties at work on a boiling hot summers day, and kids being forced to wear school uniforms like prisoners why can't try wear what they like. Danm nation!
Pathetic whataboutery. A smart dress code is not the same as a religious modesty veil loaded with stupid medieval misogyny.
It's the damn same! Office personnel rules declare they have to wear such clothing to work in that environment, same applies to schools, uniforms, police officers, nurses, doctors, priests, monks, nuns, sports players etc
They all follow " this medieval" traditions just bcuz ppl of Islam are not following society and it's man made rules, not laws ,rules they are being bullied and harassed because they don't follow along like puppets and sheep, they use there mind and intelligence in life, they don't let there body image define who or what they are worth.
Good day sir!
middle class liberals are under attack ,islamics area attacking your edifice as Irish Catlioics of my generation did .It could be (god forbid) that you have got it wrong
Nothing like the thin end of the totalitarian wedge, eh?
Ban the bowler hat!
So, for Ian, just a little culture of bacteria is okay.
He has as little clue about what's going on as any of us. Isn't that scary?
McEwan is pulling his punches and knows he would get in trouble for his real views. And that point on the 'there are so few adults who wear them' is clearly wrong. In any town centre of any size up and down England, I doubt you could go more than an hour before seeing a woman or women in a burqa, and not just in Muslim areas. Southampton city centre? Liverpool city centre? Watford? Folkstone? Norwich? I bet all of them. And lets not get started on Luton and Birmingham and Oldham and Rotherham and any area of inner London, Manchester, Rochdale, Croydon, Burnley, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Nuneaton, Telford, Bolton, Reading...the list goes on.
Yes, the old man is a tedious clown preoccupied by the invented, imported American Kulturkampf.
Yes! I get so irritated by this. I've heard it quoted that only 300 or so women wear the niqab/burka but that's BS. I could take my kid one mile up the road to school in London and see ten veiled women so it would seem unlikely the whole country has only 300! Even where I live now up North in a city with no sizable Muslim population I have seen the niqab. 300? My arse. There will be more than 300 just in say, Leicester.
St den. What percentage of women wear the burqa?
baby boobear. Anecdotal information is just great.
@@danzel1157 are you seriously trying to say there are only 300 people wearing the niqab in the whole country?? Where the fuck do you live? Orkney?! How is this figure arrived at anyway? It's deeply worrying because it is being deliberately adopted in the main by young women who are using it as a way of saying "we are not like you, we reject your values." If you think that's a trend that is not concerning you're a fool.
Funny how sometimes Newsnight interviewers hang on the every word of the interviewee others they hardly let them speak.
Waffle,waffle,waffle....
burka off
I find the Burka quite insulting, as a man do these women really think that I am going to be overcome with passion if I see their faces? The Burka assumes that I am unable to control my urges which to me is an insult.
Rambles a bit doeesn't he :/
Typical BBC guest. Worried by the right but not the left.
Stephen Heppell. Sounds reasonable to me.
Please, sorry whrn in my replies, I am repeating myself using the same reply for two different people, and even the same person, in my replies below.