Thursday, 8 July 2010

On Banning the Burqua

It's not a Burqua.

You almost never see a Burqua in the UK. A Burqua is an Afghan garment with a mesh covering the face, and I have NEVER seen one.


Burqua: Self-propelled blue marquee.

Whereas this filthy strumpet is showing us her eyes and will surely be cast down by Allah. What we see are the post-box ladies wearing a Niqab, in the persian Gulf style as modelled above.

Now the issue is simple. I hate seeing these medaeval forms of dress, because I believe they demean women to subsurvient roles and suggest that male sexuality is so uncontrollable that a mere glimpse of hair or leg will lead to rape. Both genders are dishonoured by the practice of veilling women.

However the state should have no say in what is a private decision of what to wear. If the woman is coerced into going veilled, then banning the wearing of it will lead to her being housebound. You make the situation worse for those you are trying to help and cause more suffering to those who are already opressed. Making illegal for men to force "their" women to wear veils enshrines in law the concept of women as chattels, will be difficult to enforce and will probably have the same effect. The incidence of suffering is not always the same as the law's target. Culture is not amenable to law, only to moral pressue and cultural assimilation. The 'crime' of forcing one's wife to do anything is already dealt with in laws against false imprisonment, rape and domestic abuse. And finally if a woman freely chooses to wear these Garments, then why should she not?

We have no right to allow or disallow any form of dress, however absurd, but if we allow the full face veil, then Stephen Gough, the Naked Rambler (SFW) should be left to his own devices rather than being arrested every time he goes out of doors dressed as nature intended. Perhaps Mr Gough and his missus should be encouraged to naked walk through "muslim areas" (another unpleasant concept creeping into english law)?

Any law regulating what people can and cannot wear will be fraught with problems of definition, and lead to absurd prosecutions. Society can effectively regulate what people wear, by custom, ridicule, ostrasism and suspicion (try wearing a very comfortable and practical sarong in public if you're a man, if you think that I'm condoning racism) That's up to each individual, to jeer, holler and take the piss. By all means allow people to wear what they want, but allow people to discriminate on the basis of the choices people make about what to wear. Society is NOT the same thing as the state.



10 comments:

JimmyGiro said...

And there was me thinking it was to save the environment from excess sun cream use.

Would these garments be an issue if it was discovered that the women themselves are the ones that impose its wearing as a cultural requirement?

Anonymous said...

I agree, Jackart, with a point well made. If the government were to ban the burqua would they also not have to ban people attending fancy dress parties as Zorro, or tinted visors on a motorbike crash helmet? Where would Ninjas stand under the Daily Mail inspired witch hunt?

I think that if the governments of the past hadn't entrenched such a 'them and us' mindset, inter-racial fraternisation (what I would define as proper multiculturism) would have long seen these sort of issues bridged and the burqua be consigned to the dustbin long ago.

OurSally said...

As a precaution against crime it is essential that people do not appear masked in public places. This means banks, post offices and the like. I have no problem removing my crash helmet when I go there.

As a woman I feel attacked when I see someone wearing the garment of shame. No, she is not wearing it voluntarily. She wears it either because her male relations will not let her leave the house without it, or because she feels she would be defiled if a man not her husband saw any of her skin. This is a civilised country and the tent of oppression should be tossed into the dustbin.

Southerner said...

I always thought that it would be fun if MEN and WOMEN started wearing burkas when they protested ANYTHING.

If your identity is concealed, you can then hold up your protest sign with impunity. Such as, "Death to those who insult Her Majesty."

I saw an article about six months ago which discussed the rising rate of autism among dark-skinned immigrants to Nordic countries. The burka (and similar pup-tent attire) apparently makes production of Vitamin D by the body more or less impossible. Dark-skinned people in Northern latitudes don't make enough Vitamin D for good health EVEN IF they wear regular clothes, so the burka is simply a disaster.

Somali immigrants were interviewed and claimed that autism was virtually unknown in Somalia, but at epidemic levels (among Somalis) in Scandanavia.

The resident Viking said...

Jackart has nailed it on the head. In a libertarian society, a society where one should be able to do as one wills unless it is materially against the interests of another or impinges on their rights to do as they wish, who cares how someone dresses. I have seen a chap wearing a bottle green velvet dinner jacket (one couldn't really call it black tie) with a shocking pink jacket lining, if I recall correctly. This is not exactly my 'cup of tea', but I raised my hat to the nerve of the guy wearing it - truly the rules don't apply to him.

OurSally on the other hand would have us believe that either she has taken a 1:1 poll of all people who wear a veil/Hijab/Niqab/burkha and has collated the results of the poll: it is bad, or she has a reactionary view similar to the 'nannies' that I had thought we had just kicked out of power. is this not a case of political correctness, flavoured by the Daily Mail's hatred of all things foreign, against libertarian principles (again).

The resident Viking said...

Jackart has nailed it on the head. In a libertarian society, a society where one should be able to do as one wills unless it is materially against the interests of another or impinges on their rights to do as they wish, who cares how someone dresses. I have seen a chap wearing a bottle green velvet dinner jacket (one couldn't really call it black tie) with a shocking pink jacket lining, if I recall correctly. This is not exactly my 'cup of tea', but I raised my hat to the nerve of the guy wearing it - truly the rules don't apply to him.

OurSally on the other hand would have us believe that either she has taken a 1:1 poll of all people who wear a veil/Hijab/Niqab/burkha and has collated the results of the poll: it is bad, or she has a reactionary view similar to the 'nannies' that I had thought we had just kicked out of power. is this not a case of political correctness, flavoured by the Daily Mail's hatred of all things foreign, against libertarian principles (again).

Mrs Rigby said...

The State tells me that when I go into a bank or building society even on the coldest of days I can't wear a hooded top or coat, wear a wide brimmed hat or cover part of my face with a scarf. The rules for shops and shopping centres tell me the same, some say I should even remove a woolly bobble hat or beanie. They tell me it's for security reasons and over-rule my personal choice and personal preferences. They tell me that, because everybody has to follow these rules, it will keep me safe.

So how is it that somebody is allowed to envelop themselves in a head to toe garment with only their eyes visible - and can wear this garment into these same places?

And I have seen a person wearing a burqua, complete with mesh - in Britain. I have no idea whether the individual was male or female.

Re "Southerner" - there have been a number of articles documenting the worrying number of cases of rickets amongst some sectors of the British population. Vitamin D deficiency caused by a lack of exposure to sunlight.

Anonymous said...

"By all means allow people to wear what they want, but allow people to discriminate on the basis of the choices people make about what to wear. Society is NOT the same thing as the state."

But this is becoming less and less acceptable in our tolerant society isn't is Jacky? Everything is to be tolerated and nobody should be made to feel bad about anything so long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Anonymous said...

The state, with the backing of the people, should simply declare the veiling of faces unacceptable and then proceed to ban anyone who would wear them from emigrating.

Anonymous said...

to Mrs Rigby: I appreciate that shops, and other public places, are asking their patrons to ‘unmask’ themselves by removing various items of clothing (hats, scarves, etc). I also appreciate that most of these items could either be used as a disguise and it could therefore possible be deemed a crime prevention issue, security though? I take it that people are more inclined to attack other people if they are wearing hats (either protagonist or defendant) – I hardly think so, although with some hats I might be tempted. Personally I believe that this is another nanny state issue where ‘the man’ is attempting to threaten us into submission to cover some other purpose.
I would ask this though: if a public place has banned the wearing of ‘disguises’ (hats, hoods, wigs, scarves, cloaks, etc), do we not have the right to boycott that place, especially if it is a religious issue (such as wearing a veil or even a wig, for orthodox Jewish women)? As there is a plethora of places from which to purchase items or meet and mix with people, this should not be difficult to achieve and as soon as the public places that make these demands of us realise we will not tolerate the restriction of our ‘human right’ to go about dressed as we wish (provided we do not impinge on the rights of others) the sooner they will drop these stupid requirements.

to Anonymous: do you mean emigrating (as in leaving the country) or immigrating (as coming into the country)? I hardly think that it would be an effective 'law' if we had a load of people here who couldnt leave and yet couldnt leave their homes as they were vieled. wouldnt that just accomplish that which many have argued against: the virtual imprisonment of muslim women, this time by the state rather than ten menfolk?

There was an error in this gadget