Wearing of Burka

[Beef Oven!]

So this Telegrapha lecture on feminism from a Tory MP is hardly to be taken seriously.

Why not? I would take seriously a lecture from, say a member of the Socialist Workers Party. I would focus on the argument, not on a prejudice about the person's circumstances - that would be the lazy option.

[Beef Oven!]

Fair enough
lets all decide to drive on the left hand side of the road

but what people wear of their own choice ?

Why are people so frightened of "chaos" ?
Sure, if i decide to drive my car on the other side for a change that's not a good idea BUT the assumption that somehow we need more "order" , (which usually means something imposed from outside) regardless of the context is a bit daft IMV

Chaos has its place of course.

[MrGongGong]

Why not? I would take seriously a lecture from, say a member of the Socialist Workers Party. I would focus on the argument, not on a prejudice about the person's circumstances - that would be the lazy option.

She's not making much sense though is she ?
Having lived (and being a frequent visitor to) in Totnes I would imagine that she (like most of those who seem to be terribly offended by people choosing to dress differently ) has little personal experience of this ? but correct me if i'm wrong ....

[MrGongGong]

Chaos has its place of course.

I hope you aren't planning a little "chaos corner" for it ............

[Beef Oven!]

She's not making much sense though is she ?
Having lived (and being a frequent visitor to) in Totnes I would imagine that she (like most of those who seem to be terribly offended by people choosing to dress differently ) has little personal experience of this ? but correct me if i'm wrong ....

Not keen on profiling people like that.

[MrGongGong]

Not keen on profiling people like that.

SO is it OK to "profile" folks who dress differently ?
I was just wondering (as Richard asked before) whether she had actually communicated with someone in a niqab ?
What one imagines would be difficult (the whole nonsense of not being able to "communicate" without seeing someones face) is often not so ...... conversely sometimes things one would imagine to be simple (like editing string parts grrrrrrrr) can be most complex

[Beef Oven!]

SO is it OK to "profile" folks who dress differently ?
I was just wondering (as Richard asked before) whether she had actually communicated with someone in a niqab ?
What one imagines would be difficult (the whole nonsense of not being able to "communicate" without seeing someones face) is often not so ...... conversely sometimes things one would imagine to be simple (like editing string parts grrrrrrrr) can be most complex

Agreed, it is not appropriate to profile wearers of any particular clothing (that's to say nothing of haircuts and the like).

[aeolium]

I think this article makes a good case against the use of the term "Islamophobia". There are beliefs and practices within Islam which it seems perfectly reasonable to criticise and someone doing so should not be labelled as "Islamophobic". Islam is a belief system and like any other belief system is open to criticism. Ironically, the article mentions a source which suggests that the term may have originated during the Iranian revolution to describe women who refused to wear the hijab.

The issue raised by the thread in the first place concerned the wearing of the niqab (mistakenly described as burka) during legal proceedings. The recently delivered judgement on this stated that it could be worn, but that the face had to be disclosed while the wearer was giving evidence. Does anyone have a strong argument against this verdict?

[ahinton]

Islam is a religion. You can't be racist about a religion.

Richard Barrett did not mention a religion; he referred to Islamophobia, which is not a religion. He also wrote "the racism lurking behind it" as distinct from "the racism inherent in it".

[scottycelt]

So if EVERYONE is to have the same law then if I decide to (for example) open a B&B ............ you get the point ?

Well, I think the BB, to which you are possibly referring, decided to close, a bit like many adoption agencies which remained true to their principles and refused to be bullied by the state. So, no, I do not get your point. These places complied with the law by closing, however grossly unfair and sad that might seem to many of us.

However the basic human right of 'freedom of belief' is not quite the same as expecting to be treated differently in a court of law through the clearly inappropriate wearing of any sort of face-cover, whether it's a religious custom or not.

Religion and Feminism are both somewhat irrelevant to what is the main point at issue here ...

[ahinton]

So this Telegraph article is "balanced", is it? Firstly, as teamsaint says, a lecture on feminism from a Tory MP is hardly to be taken seriously.

I think that, to be fair, that would depend upon the contents of that lecture.

And then: "once the niqab becomes an accepted norm" - where is the evidence that this is even a vague possibility on the horizon? Less than 5% of the population of the UK is Muslim, and of this 5% a tiny proportion are wearing the niqab. Why is this phenomenon inflated into a matter for "national debate" and front-page news? One might almost suspect it was in order to foment Islamophobia and the racism lurking behind it.

I fear that you may well be right; at least I cannot think of a credible alternative explanation. That said, do Muslims really represent less than 5% of the UK population? I'm sure you'd not have written so had you not checked reliable sources first - I'm just a little surprised by that statistic, that's all, but that doesn't undermine your point.

[ahinton]

Religion and Feminism are both somewhat irrelevant to what is the main point at issue here ...

I don't see how religion can be irrelevant to discussion of the wearing of a garment that is part of a religious custom.

[MrGongGong]

a bit like many adoption agencies which remained true to their principles and refused to be bullied by the state. .

Or to put another way...... decided that they were more concerned with their beliefs than the welfare of vulnerable children

[scottycelt]

Or to put another way...... decided that they were more concerned with their beliefs than the welfare of vulnerable children

No, you are quite wrong, imho. It was the state that was more concerned with 'political correctness' than the welfare of vulnerable children.

The adoption agencies simply wanted to help vulnerable children in exactly the same way as they had always done in the past but it was the state that demanded they had to ditch their beliefs or close down. Understandably, the agencies closed down. It would have been unthinkable for anyone to be forced to act against their principles simply at the diktat of the state. The outcome was entirely predictable and the cause of the closures was entirely due to agenda-driven politicians and not the agencies.

However, that's not the subject of this thread so why bring it up here ? Let's stick to the wholly separate and simple issue of whether any sort of face-cover should be permitted in court, MrGG!

[scottycelt]

I don't see how religion can be irrelevant to discussion of the wearing of a garment that is part of a religious custom.

It is wholly irrelevant. The issue is face-cover not religious custom. Precisely the same rules on face-cover should apply to any atheist whose custom is to walk around with a saucepan over his head.

The issue is transparency and exactly the same level of transparency should be demanded of everybody.